BLM Mission Statement 

It is the mission of the Bureau of Land Management to sustain the health, diversity, and 

productivity of the public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations. 

BLM/WO/GI-12/013+3000 

DOI No. FES 12-41 
Proposed Land Use Plan Amendments (PRMP Amendments) for Allocation of Oil Shale 

and Tar Sands Resources on Lands Administered by the Bureau of Land Management in 

Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming and Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) 

Lead Agency: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management 

Type of Action: Final, Administrative 

Cooperating Agencies: 

 National Park Service Garfield County, Colorado 

 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Duchesne County, Utah 

 State of Utah Carbon County, Utah 

 State of Wyoming Uintah County, Utah 

 City of Rifle, Colorado Lincoln County, Wyoming 

 Grand County, Utah Sweetwater County, Wyoming 

 State of Colorado, Department of Coalition of Local Governments 

 Natural Resources and Department of 

 Health and the Environment 

Location: Northwestern Colorado, eastern Utah, and southwestern Wyoming 

Abstract: Under the Proposed Plan/Final PEIS, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

proposes to amend 10 land use plans in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming to describe those areas 

that will be open and those that will be closed to application for commercial leasing, exploration, 

and development of oil shale and tar sands resources. Specifically, the proposed Plan/Final PEIS 

will decrease the acreage in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming currently open for application for 

future leasing and development of oil shale or tar sands. The BLM intends to maintain focus on 

research, development, and demonstration (RD&D) projects in order to obtain more information 

about possible development technologies and their environmental consequences before 

committing to broad-scale development. Four alternatives (two of which include subalternatives) 

were considered in the PEIS. As a result of public comments and upon further review, 

corrections/revisions were made to the alternatives, and changes were made from what was 

presented as the Preferred Alternative in the Draft PEIS. These changes have resulted in a 

Proposed Plan Amendment (composed of Alternative 2(b) from the DPEIS, as well as certain 

elements of the other alternatives) that references new acreage figures. Under the Proposed Plan, 

approximately 676,967 acres would be open for application for future leasing and development of 

oil shale and approximately 129,567 acres would be open for potential tar sands leasing and 

development, but only for RD&D leases. The BLM would issue a commercial lease only when a 

lessee satisfies the conditions of its RD&D lease and the regulations at 43 CFR Subpart 3926 for 

conversion to a commercial lease. The preferential right acreage, if any, which would be included 

in the converted lease, would be specified in the RD&D lease. The Proposed Plan/Final PEIS is 

designed to ensure that oil shale and tar sands technologies can operate at environmentally 

acceptable levels before commercial development is authorized. 

On the basis of the analysis in this PEIS, the BLM has determined that there is no environmental 

impact associated with amending land use plans to make lands available for application for 

commercial leasing, but there may be impacts on land values. While the BLM has determined 

that there are no environmental impacts associated with the amendment of land use plans, it 

intends to establish a commercial leasing program to facilitate future development and has 
included a programmatic-level analysis of the potential impact of oil shale and tar sands 

development technologies as they are currently known. 

Contacts: For further information about this PEIS, you may contact Sherri Thompson, Project 

Manager, BLM Colorado State Office, 2850 Youngfield Street, Lakewood, Colorado 80215-

7093; (303) 239-3758. 

Responsible Official: 

Michael Nedd 

 BLM Assistant Director, 

Minerals, Realty and Resource Protection 

1849 C Street NW 

Washington, D.C. 20240 
Final OSTS PEIS 

i 

DOCUMENT CONTENTS 

VOLUME 1 

Executive Summary 

Chapter 1: Introduction 

Chapter 2: Descriptions of Alternatives 

Chapter 3: Affected Environment 

VOLUME 2 

Chapter 4: Effects of Oil Shale Technologies 

Chapter 5: Effects of Tar Sands Technologies 

VOLUME 3 

Chapter 6: Impact Assessment for Oil Shale and Tar Sands Alternatives 

VOLUME 4 

Chapter 7: Consultation and Coordination 

Chapter 8: List of Preparers 

Chapter 9: Glossary 

Appendix A: Oil Shale Development Background and Technology Overview 

Appendix B: Tar Sands Development Background and Technology Overview 

Appendix C: Proposed Land Use Plan Amendments Associated with Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 

for Oil Shale and Tar Sands 

Appendix D: Federal, State, and County Regulatory Requirements Potentially Applicable 

to Oil Shale and Tar Sands Development Projects 

Appendix E: Threatened and Endangered Species within the Oil Shale and Tar Sands 

Study Area 

Appendix F: Proposed Conservation Measures for Oil Shale and Tar Sands Leasing and 

Development 

Appendix G: Socioeconomic and Environmental Justice Analysis Methodologies 

Appendix H: Approach Used for Interviews of Selected Residents in the Oil Shale and Tar 

Sands Study Area Considered in the 2008 Oil Shale and Tar Sands Programmatic 

Environmental Impact Statement 

Appendix I: Instream Flow Water Rights in the Piceance Basin, Colorado 

Appendix J: Summary of Public Scoping Comments for the Programmatic Environmental 

Impact Statement and Possible Land Use Plan Amendments for Allocation of Oil 

Shale and Tar Sands Resources on Lands Administered by the Bureau of Land 

Management in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming 
Final OSTS PEIS 

ii 

DOCUMENT CONTENTS (Cont.) 

VOLUME 5 

Appendix K: Greater Sage-Grouse Instructional Memoranda, Conservation Measures, and Core 

Area Protection Strategies 

Appendix L: Government-to-Government and National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 

Consultations 

Appendix M: Cooperating Agency and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Letters 

Comment Response Document 
Final OSTS PEIS 

iii 

VOLUME 1 CONTENTS 

NOTATION ............................................................................................................................ xix

ENGLISH/METRIC AND METRIC/ENGLISH EQUIVALENTS ...................................... xxvi

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................... ES-1

 ES.1 Background to the PEIS ....................................................................................... ES-1

 ES.2 Description of the Planning Area ........................................................................ ES-2

 ES.3 Public Involvement .............................................................................................. ES-2

 ES.4 Cooperating Agencies .......................................................................................... ES-3

 ES.5 BLM’s Oil Shale and Tar Sands Leasing Program ............................................. ES-4

 ES.6 Alternatives .......................................................................................................... ES-5

 ES.6.1 Alternative 1, No Action Alternative, No Change to 2008 Decision, 

 Oil Shale ................................................................................................. ES-5

 ES.6.2 Alternative 1, No Action Alternative, No Change to 2008 Decision, 

 Tar Sands ................................................................................................ ES-5

 ES.6.3 Alternative 2, Oil Shale Conservation Focus Alternative (2a), 

 and with RD&D First Requirement (2b), Oil Shale ............................... ES-6

 ES.6.4 Alternative 2, Conservation Focus Alternative, Tar Sands .................... ES-7

 ES.6.5 Alternative 3, Oil Shale Research Lands Focus 

 (RD&D with PRLA only), Oil Shale ..................................................... ES-7

 ES.6.6 Alternative 3, Pending Commercial Lease, Tar Sands .......................... ES-7

 ES.6.7 Alternative 4, 2008 Moderate Development Alternative (4a), 

 and with RD&D First Requirement (4b), Oil Shale ............................... ES-7

 ES.6.8 Alternative 4, Tar Sands Moderate Development Alternative, 

 Tar Sands ................................................................................................ ES-8

 ES.7 Proposed Plan ...................................................................................................... ES-9

 ES.8 Analysis of the Impacts of the Proposed Plan Amendment for Oil Shale 

 and Tar Sands ...................................................................................................... ES-10

 ES.9 References ............................................................................................................ ES-11

1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 1-1

 1.1 Purpose and Need ................................................................................................. 1-4

 1.1.1 Specific Scope and Objectives of the PEIS .............................................. 1-5

 1.2 Scope of the Analysis............................................................................................ 1-7

 1.2.1 Public Involvement ................................................................................... 1-13

 1.2.2 Environmental Impact Analysis in This PEIS .......................................... 1-14

 1.3 Cooperating Agencies ........................................................................................... 1-15

 1.4 Relationship of the Proposed Action to Other BLM and Cooperating Agency 

 Programs, Policies, and Plans ............................................................................... 1-16

 1.4.1 BLM’s Oil Shale Research, Development, and Demonstration 

 Program ..................................................................................................... 1-16
Final OSTS PEIS 

iv 

CONTENTS (Cont.) 

 1.4.2 Combined Hydrocarbon Leasing Program and Leasing in STSAs 

 Issued under the Revised MLA ................................................................. 1-18

 1.4.3 Existing BLM Land Use Plans, Ongoing Planning Activities, and 

 Resource Management Plan Revisions ..................................................... 1-19

 1.4.4 Leasing ...................................................................................................... 1-20

 1.4.5 Cooperating Agency Plans and Programs................................................. 1-21

 1.4.6 Other BLM Programmatic Energy-Related Land Use Planning 

 Initiatives................................................................................................... 1-22

 1.4.6.1 BLM and U.S. Forest Service Energy Corridor Designation .... 1-22

 1.4.6.2 BLM and USFS Programmatic EIS for Geothermal Leasing.... 1-22

 1.4.6.3 BLM and DOE Programmatic EIS for Solar Energy 

 Development .............................................................................. 1-22

 1.4.6.4 DOE Uranium Leasing Programmatic EIS ................................ 1-23

 1.5 References ............................................................................................................. 1-23

2 DESCRIPTIONS OF ALTERNATIVES ...................................................................... 2-1

 2.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................... 2-1 

 2.2 Existing Statutory Requirements and BLM Policies Potentially Applicable 

 to Oil Shale and Tar Sands Development ............................................................. 2-2 

 2.2.1 Existing Relevant Statutory Requirements ............................................... 2-2 

 2.2.2 Existing Relevant BLM Policies and Mitigation Guidance ...................... 2-8 

 2.2.3 Management of BLM-Administered Lands .............................................. 2-10 

 2.3 Oil Shale................................................................................................................ 2-14 

 2.3.1 Potential Commercial Oil Shale Development Technologies .................. 2-17 

 2.3.2 Alternative 1, Oil Shale No Action Alternative, No Change to 

 2008 Decision ........................................................................................... 2-21 

 2.3.3 Commercial Oil Shale Program Land Allocation Alternatives ................ 2-27 

 2.3.3.1 Alternative 2, Oil Shale Conservation Focus 

 (Alternative 2[a]), with RD&D First Requirement 

 (Alternative 2[b]) (Proposed Plan—see Section 2.5) ................ 2-36 

 2.3.3.2 Alternative 3, Oil Shale Research Lands Focus (RD&D 

 with PRLA Only) ....................................................................... 2-43 

 2.3.3.3 Alternative 4, Oil Shale Moderate Development 

 (2008 OSTS PEIS ROD Minus Adobe Town and 

 ACECs) (Alternative 4[a]), with RD&D First 

 Requirement (Alternative 4[b]) ................................................. 2-47 

 2.4 Tar Sands .............................................................................................................. 2-57 

 2.4.1 Potential Commercial Tar Sands Development Technologies ................. 2-59 

 2.4.2 Alternative 1, Tar Sands No Action Alternative, No Change to 

 2008 Decision ........................................................................................... 2-62 

 2.4.3 Commercial Tar Sands Land Allocation Alternatives .............................. 2-62 
Final OSTS PEIS 

v 

CONTENTS (Cont.) 

 2.4.3.1 Alternative 2, Tar Sands Conservation Focus 

 (Proposed Plan Amendment—see Section 2.5) ......................... 2-68 

 2.4.3.2 Alternative 3, Tar Sands Pending Commercial Lease ............... 2-73 

 2.4.3.3 Alternative 4, Tar Sands Moderate Development 

 (2008 OSTS PEIS ROD Minus Adobe Town and ACECs) ...... 2-75 

 2.5 Proposed Plan Amendment ................................................................................... 2-79 

 2.6 Alternatives and Issues Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Analysis ....... 2-82 

 2.6.1 Alternatives That Use the New USGS In-Place Oil Assessment 

 Maps as the Basis for the Planning Area To Be Analyzed ....................... 2-82 

 2.6.2 Alternatives That Would Apply the Wyoming “Most Geologically 

 Prospective Area” Criteria to Colorado and Utah ..................................... 2-83 

 2.6.3 Alternatives Considering Alternate Energy Sources and Carbon 

 Sequestration ............................................................................................. 2-83 

 2.6.4 Alternatives That Prohibit Leasing in Specific Areas ............................... 2-84 

 2.6.5 Off-Site Processing of Oil Shale ............................................................... 2-84 

 2.6.6 Establishment of Federal Subsidies .......................................................... 2-84 

 2.6.7 Closing of All RD&D Lease Lands, Except for One Pending 

 Oil Shale RD&D Application and One Pending Tar Sands RD&D 

 Lease in the Vernal Field Office ............................................................... 2-85 

 2.6.8 Opening of All ACECs to Oil Shale Leasing ........................................... 2-85 

 2.6.9 Opening of All Lands with Wilderness Characteristics to Oil Shale 

 and Tar Sands Leasing .............................................................................. 2-85 

 2.6.10 Mid-Range Alternative That Excludes a Fixed Percentage of Lands 

 with Wilderness Characteristics ................................................................ 2-86 

 2.6.11 Carrying-Capacity Thresholds .................................................................. 2-87 

 2.6.12 Establishment of Trust Funds ................................................................... 2-87 

 2.6.13 Research Lands Focus That Considers Only the Current RD&D 

 Leases ........................................................................................................ 2-87 

 2.7 Comparison of Alternatives .................................................................................. 2-88 

 2.8 References ............................................................................................................. 2-138 

3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ..................................................................................... 3-1 

 3.1 Land Use ............................................................................................................... 3-1

 3.1.1 BLM Land Use Plans within the Study Area............................................ 3-1

 3.1.1.1 Colorado River Valley Field Office, Colorado .......................... 3-4

 3.1.1.2 Grand Junction Field Office, Colorado...................................... 3-8

 3.1.1.3 White River Field Office, Colorado .......................................... 3-9

 3.1.1.4 Grand StaircaseEscalante National Monument, Utah ............. 3-13

 3.1.1.5 Monticello Field Office, Utah .................................................... 3-15

 3.1.1.6 Price Field Office, Utah ............................................................. 3-16

 3.1.1.7 Richfield Field Office, Utah ...................................................... 3-22

 3.1.1.8 Vernal Field Office, Utah .......................................................... 3-25
Final OSTS PEIS 

vi 

CONTENTS (Cont.) 

 3.1.1.9 Kemmerer Field Office, Wyoming ............................................ 3-30

 3.1.1.10 Rawlins Field Office, Wyoming ................................................ 3-32

 3.1.1.11 Rock Springs Field Office, Wyoming ....................................... 3-36

 3.1.2 Recreational Land Use in the Three-State Study Area ............................. 3-38

 3.1.3 Wild Horses and Burros in the Three-State Study Area ........................... 3-40

 3.2 Geological Resources and Seismic Setting ........................................................... 3-43

 3.2.1 Piceance Basin .......................................................................................... 3-43

 3.2.1.1 Physiography ............................................................................. 3-43

 3.2.1.2 Geologic Setting ........................................................................ 3-44

 3.2.1.3 Soils ........................................................................................... 3-46

 3.2.1.4 Seismicity and Landslide Susceptibility .................................... 3-46

 3.2.1.5 Mineral Resources ..................................................................... 3-47

 3.2.2 Uinta Basin................................................................................................ 3-47

 3.2.2.1 Physiography ............................................................................. 3-47

 3.2.2.2 Geologic Setting ........................................................................ 3-47

 3.2.2.3 Soils ........................................................................................... 3-48

 3.2.2.4 Seismicity and Landslide Susceptibility .................................... 3-48

 3.2.2.5 Mineral Resources ..................................................................... 3-49

 3.2.3 Green River Basin and Washakie Basin ................................................... 3-49

 3.2.3.1 Physiography ............................................................................. 3-49

 3.2.3.2 Geologic Setting ........................................................................ 3-49

 3.2.3.3 Soils ........................................................................................... 3-50

 3.2.3.4 Seismicity and Landslide Susceptibility .................................... 3-50

 3.2.3.5 Mineral Resources ..................................................................... 3-51

 3.2.4 Special Tar Sand Areas ............................................................................. 3-51

 3.2.4.1 Physiography ............................................................................. 3-51

 3.2.4.2 Geologic Setting ........................................................................ 3-51

 3.2.4.3 Soils ........................................................................................... 3-52

 3.2.4.4 Seismicity and Landslide Susceptibility .................................... 3-52

 3.2.4.5 Mineral Resources ..................................................................... 3-53

 3.3 Paleontological Resources .................................................................................... 3-53

 3.3.1 Piceance Basin .......................................................................................... 3-57

 3.3.2 Uinta Basin................................................................................................ 3-57

 3.3.3 Green River and Washakie Basins ............................................................ 3-57

 3.3.4 Special Tar Sand Areas ............................................................................. 3-62

 3.4 Water Resources ................................................................................................... 3-63

 3.4.1 Legal Framework of the Upper Colorado River Basin ............................. 3-63

 3.4.1.1 Water Allocation ........................................................................ 3-63

 3.4.1.2 Basin Salinity and Surface Water Quality ................................. 3-64

 3.4.1.3 Impaired Streams under the Clean Water Act ........................... 3-65

 3.4.1.4 Water Use .................................................................................. 3-66

 3.4.2 Piceance Basin .......................................................................................... 3-80

 3.4.2.1 Groundwater Resources ............................................................. 3-80
Final OSTS PEIS 

vii 

CONTENTS (Cont.) 

 3.4.2.2 Surface Water Resources ........................................................... 3-83

 3.4.3 Uinta Basin................................................................................................ 3-86

 3.4.3.1 Groundwater Resources ............................................................. 3-86

 3.4.3.2 Surface Water Resources ........................................................... 3-88

 3.4.4 Green River Basin and Washakie Basin ................................................... 3-91

 3.4.4.1 Groundwater Resources ............................................................. 3-91

 3.4.4.2 Surface Water Resources ........................................................... 3-94

 3.4.5 Special Tar Sand Areas ............................................................................. 3-96

 3.4.5.1 Groundwater Resources ............................................................. 3-96

 3.4.5.2 Surface Water Resources ........................................................... 3-96

 3.5 Air Quality and Climate ........................................................................................ 3-100

 3.5.1 Climate ...................................................................................................... 3-100

 3.5.1.1 Meteorology ............................................................................... 3-100

 3.5.1.2 Global Climate Change .............................................................. 3-102

 3.5.2 Existing Emissions .................................................................................... 3-110

 3.5.3 Air Quality ................................................................................................ 3-113

 3.6 Existing Acoustic Environment ............................................................................ 3-124

 3.7 Ecological Resources ............................................................................................ 3-126

 3.7.1 Aquatic Resources .................................................................................... 3-127

 3.7.1.1 Oil Shale Basins ......................................................................... 3-139

 3.7.1.2 Special Tar Sand Areas .............................................................. 3-144

 3.7.2 Plant Communities and Habitats ............................................................... 3-145

 3.7.2.1 Piceance Basin ........................................................................... 3-145

 3.7.2.2 Uinta Basin ................................................................................ 3-151

 3.7.2.3 Green River and Washakie Basins............................................. 3-155

 3.7.2.4 Special Tar Sand Areas .............................................................. 3-159

 3.7.3 Wildlife ..................................................................................................... 3-164

 3.7.3.1 Amphibians and Reptiles ........................................................... 3-165

 3.7.3.2 Birds ........................................................................................... 3-165

 3.7.3.3 Mammals ................................................................................... 3-169

 3.7.4 Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species ....................................... 3-173

 3.7.4.1 Species Listed under the Endangered Species Act .................... 3-174

 3.7.4.2 Species That Are Proposed for Listing under the 

 Endangered Species Act ............................................................ 3-201

 3.7.4.3 Species That Are Candidates for Listing under the 

 Endangered Species Act ............................................................ 3-202

 3.7.4.4 BLM-Designated Sensitive Species and State-Listed 

 Species ....................................................................................... 3-206

 3.7.4.5 Other Species of Concern .......................................................... 3-207

 3.8 Visual Resources ................................................................................................... 3-208

 3.8.1 Introduction ............................................................................................... 3-208

 3.8.2 Oil Shale Areas ......................................................................................... 3-209

 3.8.2.1 Piceance Basin ........................................................................... 3-209
Final OSTS PEIS 

viii 

CONTENTS (Cont.) 

 3.8.2.2 Uinta Basin ................................................................................ 3-211

 3.8.2.3 Green River Basin ...................................................................... 3-212

 3.8.2.4 Washakie Basin.......................................................................... 3-213

 3.8.3 Special Tar Sand Areas ............................................................................. 3-214

 3.8.3.1 Argyle Canyon STSA ................................................................ 3-214

 3.8.3.2 Asphalt Ridge STSA .................................................................. 3-214

 3.8.3.3 Hill Creek STSA ........................................................................ 3-215

 3.8.3.4 Pariette STSA ............................................................................ 3-215

 3.8.3.5 P.R. Spring STSA ...................................................................... 3-216

 3.8.3.6 Raven Ridge STSA .................................................................... 3-216

 3.8.3.7 San Rafael Swell STSA ............................................................. 3-216

 3.8.3.8 Sunnyside STSA ........................................................................ 3-218

 3.8.3.9 Tar Sand Triangle STSA............................................................ 3-219

 3.8.3.10 White Canyon STSA ................................................................. 3-219

 3.9 Cultural Resources ................................................................................................ 3-220

 3.9.1 NHPA Section 106 Compliance ............................................................... 3-221

 3.9.1.1 Land Use Plan Allocation .......................................................... 3-222

 3.9.1.2 Leasing ....................................................................................... 3-223

 3.9.1.3 Project Development.................................................................. 3-225

 3.9.2 Piceance Basin .......................................................................................... 3-226

 3.9.2.1 Prehistoric Context for Archaeological Sites, Features, and 

 Structures ................................................................................... 3-226

 3.9.2.2 Historic Context for Archaeological Sites, Features, and 

 Structures ................................................................................... 3-227

 3.9.2.3 Surveys and Sites in the Study Area .......................................... 3-228

 3.9.3 Uinta Basin................................................................................................ 3-229

 3.9.3.1 Prehistoric Context for Archaeological Sites, Features, and 

 Structures ................................................................................... 3-229

 3.9.3.2 Historic Context for Archaeological Sites, Features, and 

 Structures ................................................................................... 3-230

 3.9.3.3 Surveys and Sites in the Study Area .......................................... 3-230

 3.9.4 Green River and Washakie Basins ............................................................ 3-231

 3.9.4.1 Prehistoric Context for Archaeological Sites, Features, and 

 Structures ................................................................................... 3-231

 3.9.4.2 Historic Context for Archaeological Sites, Features, and 

 Structures ................................................................................... 3-232

 3.9.4.3 Surveys and Sites in the Study Area .......................................... 3-233

 3.9.5 Special Tar Sand Areas in East-Central and Southeastern Utah ............... 3-233

 3.9.5.1 Prehistoric Context for Archaeological Sites, Features, and 

 Structures ................................................................................... 3-235

 3.9.5.2 Historic Context for Archaeological Sites, Features, and 

 Structures ................................................................................... 3-236

 3.9.5.3 Surveys and Sites in the Study Area .......................................... 3-236
Final OSTS PEIS 

ix 

CONTENTS (Cont.) 

 3.10 Indian Tribal Concerns ......................................................................................... 3-238

 3.10.1 Piceance Basin .......................................................................................... 3-240

 3.10.2 Uinta Basin................................................................................................ 3-241

 3.10.3 Green River and Washakie Basins ............................................................ 3-242

 3.10.4 Special Tar Sands Areas in East-Central and Southeastern Utah ............. 3-243

 3.10.5 Summary of Tribal Consultation .............................................................. 3-244

 3.11 Socioeconomics .................................................................................................... 3-246

 3.11.1 Past Oil Shale Development ..................................................................... 3-246

 3.11.2 Current Conditions .................................................................................... 3-250

 3.11.2.1 Economic Environment ............................................................. 3-252

 3.11.2.2 Social Environment.................................................................... 3-257

 3.11.3 Recreation Economy ................................................................................. 3-279

 3.11.3.1 Economic Valuation of Public Lands Used for Recreation ....... 3-280

 3.11.3.2 Economic Impact of Recreational Activities ............................. 3-281

 3.11.4 Transportation ........................................................................................... 3-282

 3.11.4.1 Colorado..................................................................................... 3-282

 3.11.4.2 Utah ............................................................................................ 3-283

 3.11.4.3 Wyoming ................................................................................... 3-284

 3.12 Environmental Justice ........................................................................................... 3-284

 3.13 References ............................................................................................................. 3-292

FIGURES 

1.2-1 Most Geologically Prospective Oil Shale Resources within the Green River 

 Formation Basins in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming ............................................ 1-9

1.2-2 Special Tar Sand Areas in Utah ............................................................................ 1-10 

2.3-1 Green River Formation Basins in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming; the Most 

 Geologically Prospective Oil Shale Resources; the Areas Where the 

 Overburden above the Oil Shale Resources Is ≤500 ft ......................................... 2-15 

2.3-2 Locations of the Nine RD&D Tracts and Associated PRLAs .............................. 2-18 

2.3.2-1 Lands Available for Application for Leasing under Alternative 1 in Colorado ... 2-23 

2.3.2-2 Lands Available for Application for Leasing under Alternative 1 in Utah .......... 2-24 

2.3.2-3 Lands Available for Application for Leasing under Alternative 1 in Wyoming .. 2-25 
Final OSTS PEIS 

x 

FIGURES (Cont.) 

2.3.3-1 Land Categories Used as Criteria To Identify Lands Open for Application 

 for Oil Shale Leasing under Alternative 2 (and Proposed Plan Amendment) 

 in Colorado............................................................................................................ 2-39 

2.3.3-2 Land Categories Used as Criteria To Identify Lands Open for Application 

 for Oil Shale Leasing under Alternative 2 (and Proposed Plan Amendment) 

 in Utah ................................................................................................................... 2-40 

2.3.3-3 Land Categories Used as Criteria To Identify Lands Open for Application 

 for Oil Shale Leasing under Alternative 2 (and Proposed Plan Amendment) 

 in Wyoming .......................................................................................................... 2-41 

2.3.3-4 Lands Available for Application for Oil Shale Leasing under Alternative 2 

 (and Proposed Plan Amendment) in Colorado ..................................................... 2-44 

2.3.3-5 Lands Available for Application for Oil Shale Leasing under Alternative 2 

 (and Proposed Plan Amendment) in Utah ............................................................ 2-45 

2.3.3-6 Lands Available for Application for Oil Shale Leasing under Alternative 2 

 (and Proposed Plan Amendment) in Wyoming .................................................... 2-46 

2.3.3-7 Seven Existing RD&D Leases in Colorado .......................................................... 2-48 

2.3.3-8 Potential New RD&D Oil Shale Lease in Utah .................................................... 2-49 

2.3.3-9 Lands Available for Application for Oil Shale Leasing under Alternative 4 

 in Colorado............................................................................................................ 2-52 

2.3.3-10 Lands Available for Application for Oil Shale Leasing under Alternative 4 

 in Utah ................................................................................................................... 2-53 

2.3.3-11 Lands Available for Application for Oil Shale Leasing under Alternative 4 

 in Wyoming .......................................................................................................... 2-54 

2.4-1 Special Tar Sand Areas in Utah ............................................................................ 2-58 

2.4.2-1 Lands Available for Application for Tar Sands Leasing under Alternative 1 

 for Commercial Tar Sands Development within the STSAs in Utah ................... 2-63 

2.4.3-1 Land Categories Used as Criteria To Identify Lands Open for Leasing under 

 Alternative 2 (and Proposed Plan Amendment) for Commercial Tar Sands 

 Development within the STSAs in Utah ............................................................... 2-70 
Final OSTS PEIS 

xi 

FIGURES (Cont.) 

2.4.3-2 Lands Available for Application for Tar Sands Leasing under Alternative 2 

 (and Proposed Plan Amendment) for Commercial Tar Sands Development 

 within the STSAs in Utah ..................................................................................... 2-71 

2.4.3-3 Location of Potential Tar Sands Lease under Alternative 3 ................................. 2-74 

2.4.3-4 Lands Available for Application for Tar Sands Leasing under Alternative 4 

 for Commercial Tar Sands Development within the STSAs in Utah ................... 2-76 

3.1.1-1 Distribution of BLM-, NPS-, USFS-, and USFWS-Administered Lands 

 with Respect to Oil Shale and Tar Sands Resources ............................................ 3-5

3.1.1-2 BLM Planning Areas in Colorado Where Oil Shale Resources Are Located ...... 3-6

3.1.1-3 1997 White River RMP Decisions Related to Oil Shale Leasing and 

 Development ......................................................................................................... 3-11

3.1.1-4 Portions of the Grand StaircaseEscalante National Monument and the 

 Monticello and Richfield Field Offices Where Tar Sands Resources 

 Are Located ........................................................................................................... 3-14

3.1.1-5 Specially Designated Areas in the Monticello Field Office in the Vicinity 

 of the White Canyon STSA .................................................................................. 3-17

3.1.1-6 Price Field Office RMP Planning Area ................................................................ 3-18

3.1.1-7 Areas with Wilderness Characteristics in the Price Field Office That the 

 BLM Will Manage To Protect Those Characteristics That Overlap with 

 Oil Shale and/or Tar Sands Deposits .................................................................... 3-21

3.1.1-8 WSAs in the Richfield Field Office That Overlie the Tar Sand Triangle 

 STSA ..................................................................................................................... 3-24

3.1.1-9 Vernal Field Office RMP Planning Area .............................................................. 3-26

3.1.1-10 Split Estate Lands within the Hill Creek Extension of the Uintah and 

 Ouray Reservation ................................................................................................ 3-27

3.1.1-11 BLM Field Offices in Wyoming Where Oil Shale Resources Are Located ......... 3-31

3.1.1-12 Specially Designated Areas in the Kemmerer Field Office .................................. 3-33
Final OSTS PEIS 

xii 

FIGURES (Cont.) 

3.1.1-13 Specially Designated Areas Overlapping the Most Geologically 

 Prospective Area ................................................................................................... 3-35

3.1.1-14 Specially Designated Areas in the Rock Springs Field Office ............................. 3-37

3.1.3-1 Distribution of Wild Horse and Burro Herd Management Areas within the 

 Oil Shale and Tar Sands Study Area ..................................................................... 3-45

3.4.2-1 Yellow and Piceance Creeks and Their Tributaries in the Piceance Basin .......... 3-85

3.4.3-1 Major Rivers and Their Tributaries in the Uinta Basin ........................................ 3-89

3.4.4-1 Major Rivers and Their Tributaries in the Green River and Washakie 

 Basins .................................................................................................................... 3-95

3.4.5-1 Green River and Dirty Devil River Basins Drainage Map ................................... 3-98

3.5.1-1 Wind Roses at the 33-ft Level for Selected Meteorological Stations around 

 the Study Area, 20062010 .................................................................................. 3-101

3.5.1-2 Global Mean Land-Ocean Temperature Index, 1880 to Present, with Base 

 Period 1951–1980 ................................................................................................. 3-106

3.7.2-1 Ecoregions and Oil Shale Basin of Northwestern Colorado ................................. 3-146

3.7.2-2 Ecoregions and Special Tar Sand Areas of Southeastern Utah ............................ 3-152

3.7.2-3 Ecoregions and Special Tar Sand Areas of Northeastern Utah ............................ 3-153

3.7.2-4 Ecoregions and Oil Shale Basins of Southwestern Wyoming .............................. 3-156

3.7.3-1 North American Migration Flyways ..................................................................... 3-167

3.8.2-1 Landscape in the Piceance Basin .......................................................................... 3-211

3.8.2-2 Landscape in the Uinta Basin ............................................................................... 3-212

3.8.3-1 View from Wedge Overlook, San Rafael Swell near Castledale, Utah ................ 3-217

3.8.3-2 White Canyon Bridge on State Route 95, San Juan County, Utah ....................... 3-220

3.11.2-1 State ROIs for Oil Shale and Tar Sands Development Areas ............................... 3-251
Final OSTS PEIS 

xiii 

FIGURES (Cont.) 

3.12-1 Minority Population Concentration in Census Block Groups within Oil 

 Shale Resource Areas and Associated 80-km Buffer ........................................... 3-288

3.12-2 Low-Income Population Concentration in Census Block Groups within 

 Oil Shale Resource Areas and Associated 80-km Buffer ..................................... 3-289

3.12-3 Minority Population Concentration in Census Block Groups within Tar 

 Sands Resource Areas and Associated 80-km Buffer ........................................... 3-290

3.12-4 Low-Income Population Concentration in Census Block Groups within 

 Tar Sands Resource Areas and Associated 80-km Buffer 3-291 

TABLES 

2.2.3-1 Existing ACECs Intersecting Oil Shale or Tar Sands Areas ................................ 2-11 

2.3-1 Total Size in Acres of the Green River Formation Basins, Most Geologically 

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

 Estate Lands within the Most Geologically Prospective Areas in Each State ...... 2-16 

2.3-2 Summary Information for the Eight Existing and One Proposed Oil Shale 

 RD&D Projects ..................................................................................................... 2-19 

2.3.2-1 Estimated Acres Potentially Available in Each State for Application for 

 Leasing for Commercial Oil Shale Development under Alternative 1 ................. 2-26 

2.3.2-2 Summary of Activities and Conditions Assumed for Each of the Oil Shale 

 Alternatives ........................................................................................................... 2-28

2.3.3-1 Resources Covered by Stipulations and Restrictions in Place for Oil and 

 Gas Leasing in Each State That Were Used To Identify Lands Not Available 

 for Application for Leasing under Alternative C of the 2008 OSTS PEIS ........... 2-42 

2.3.3-2 Estimated Acres Potentially Available in Each State for Application for 

 Leasing for Commercial Oil Shale Development under Alternative 2 

 (and Proposed Plan Amendment) ......................................................................... 2-47 

2.3.3-3 Estimated Acres Potentially Available in Each State for Application for 

 Leasing for Commercial Oil Shale Development under Alternative 4, 

 Assuming None of the LWC and Sage-Grouse Core and Priority Habitat 

 Are Protected through NSO or No Lease Stipulations ......................................... 2-55 
Final OSTS PEIS 

xiv 

TABLES (Cont.) 

2.3.3-4 Estimated Acres Potentially Available in Each State for Application for 

 Leasing for Commercial Oil Shale Development under Alternative 4, 

 Assuming 75% of the LWC and Sage-Grouse Core and Priority Habitat 

 Is Protected through NSO or No Lease Stipulations ............................................ 2-56 

2.3.3-5 Estimated Acres Potentially Available in Each State for Application for 

 Leasing for Commercial Oil Shale Development under Alternative 4, 

 Assuming 25% of the LWC and Sage-Grouse Core and Priority Habitat 

 Is Protected through NSO or No Lease Stipulations ............................................ 2-56 

2.4-1 Total Size in Acres of the 11 STSAs and Acres of BLM-Administered 

 and Split Estate Lands within Each STSA ............................................................ 2-59 

2.4.2-1 Estimated Acres Potentially Available under Alternative 1 for Application 

 for Leasing in Each STSA for Commercial Tar Sands Development .................. 2-64 

2.4.2-2 Summary of Activities and Conditions Assumed for Each of the Tar 

 Sands Alternatives ................................................................................................ 2-65 

2.4.3-1 Estimated Acres Potentially Available under Alternative 2 (and Proposed 

 Plan Amendment) for Application for Leasing in Each STSA for 

 Commercial Tar Sands Development ................................................................... 2-72 

2.4.3-2 Resources Covered by Stipulations and Restrictions in Place for Oil and 

 Gas Leasing in the STSAs That Were Used To Identify Lands Not 

 Available for Application for Tar Sands Leasing under Alternative C 

 of the 2008 OSTS PEIS ........................................................................................ 2-73 

2.4.3-3 Estimated Acres Potentially Available for Application for Leasing in Each 

 STSA for Commercial Tar Sands Development under Alternative 4 ................... 2-78 

2.4.3-4 Estimated Acres Potentially Available in Each State for Application for 

 Leasing for Commercial Tar Sands Development under Alternative 4, 

 Assuming 75% of the LWC and Sage-Grouse Core and Priority Habitat 

 Is Protected through NSO or No Lease Stipulations ............................................ 2-78 

2.4.3-5 Estimated Acres Potentially Available in Each State for Application for 

 Leasing for Commercial Tar Sands Development under Alternative 4, 

 Assuming 25% of the LWC and Sage-Grouse Core and Priority Habitat 

 Is Protected through NSO or No Lease Stipulations ............................................ 2-79 
Final OSTS PEIS 

xv 

TABLES (Cont.) 

2.7-1 Summary Comparison of Potential Environmental Impacts of Amending 

 Land Use Plans To Identify Lands Available or Not Available for 

 Application for Leasing for the Commercial Development of Oil Shale, 

 Including RD&D, in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming, and Environmental 

 Impacts of Future Construction and Operation of Commercial Projects 

 under the Four Alternatives .................................................................................. 2-89 

2.7-2 Summary Comparison of Potential Environmental Impacts of Amending 

 Land Use Plans To Identify Lands Available or Not Available for 

 Application for Leasing for the Commercial Development of Tar Sands 

 in Utah, and Environmental Impacts of Future Construction and Operation 

 of Commercial Projects under the Four Alternatives ........................................... 2-117 

3.1.1-1 BLM Field Offices and Administrative Units, Existing Land Use Plans, 

 and Estimated Surface Acreages Overlying the Most Geologically 

 Prospective Oil Shale Resources and STSAs ....................................................... 3-2

3.1.1-2 Colorado River Valley Field Office ACECs That Overlap with Oil Shale 

 Resources .............................................................................................................. 3-9

3.1.1-3 White River Field Office ACECs That Overlap with Oil Shale Resources ......... 3-13

3.1.1-4 Price Field Office WSAs and ACECs That Overlap with Tar Sands 

 Resources .............................................................................................................. 3-20

3.1.1-5 Non-WSA Lands Recognized as Having Wilderness Characteristics 

 Designated for Long-Term Management in the Price Field Office That 

 Overlap with Oil Shale and Tar Sands Deposits ................................................... 3-22

3.1.1-6 Vernal Field Office WSAs and ACECs That Overlap with Oil Shale and 

 Tar Sands Resources ............................................................................................. 3-30

3.1.1-7 Rock Springs Field Office WSAs, SMAs, and ACECs That Overlap with 

 Oil Shale Resources .............................................................................................. 3-39

3.1.2-1 Federal and State Recreation Areas within a 50-mi Radius of the Most 

 Geologically Prospective Oil Shale Areas and STSAs ......................................... 3-41

3.1.3-1 Wild Horse Herd Management Areas within the Oil Shale and Tar Sands 

 Study Area ............................................................................................................ 3-44

3.3-1 Potential Fossil Yield Classification Descriptions ................................................ 3-55
Final OSTS PEIS 

xvi 

TABLES (Cont.) 

3.3-2 Summary of Programmatic-Level Paleontological Sensitivities of Geologic 

 Units within the Piceance, Uinta, and Greater Green River Basins ...................... 3-58

3.4.1-1 Water-Impaired Stream Segments in Oil Shale Basins and STSAs in 2012 ........ 3-67

3.4.1-2 Colorado Water Demand and Consumptive Use in 2000 and 2030 ..................... 3-72

3.4.1-3 Utah Water Demand and Consumptive Use in 2000, 2020, and 2050 ................. 3-74

3.4.1-4 Wyoming Water Demand and Consumptive Use in 2000 and 2030 .................... 3-76

3.4.1-5 Upper Colorado Basin Depletion Projections ....................................................... 3-80

3.4.5-1 Groundwater Data within or near STSAs ............................................................. 3-97

3.5.1-1 Temperature and Precipitation Summaries at Selected Meteorological 

 Stations in and around the Study Area .................................................................. 3-103

3.5.2-1 Annual Air Pollutant Emissions for Counties within and around the 

 Study Area, 2008 .................................................................................................. 3-111

3.5.3-1 National Ambient Air Quality Standards, State Ambient Air Quality 

 Standards, and Prevention of Significant Deterioration Increments for the 

 Study Area ............................................................................................................ 3-114

3.5.3-2 Monitored Concentrations Representative of the Study Area .............................. 3-117

3.5.3-3 Highest Daily Maximum 8-Hour Ozone Concentrations and the Total 

 Number of Exceedance Days at Selected Monitoring Sites within and 

 around the Study Area .......................................................................................... 3-119

3.5.3-4 PSD Class I and State Category I Areas Located within 50 mi of the 

 Study Area ............................................................................................................ 3-121

3.6-1 Colorado Limits on Maximum Permissible Noise Levels .................................... 3-126

3.7.1-1 Fishes of the Upper Colorado River Basin ........................................................... 3-129

3.7.3-1 Number of Wildlife Species Occurring within the Oil Shale and Tar 

 Sands Study Area .................................................................................................. 3-166

3.7.4-1 Federally and State-Listed Species According to Taxonomic Group That 

 Occur in Counties with the Potential for Oil Shale or Tar Sands Development ... 3-175
Final OSTS PEIS 

xvii 

TABLES (Cont.) 

3.7.4-2 Federally and State-Listed Species That Occur within Counties with the 

 Potential for Oil Shale or Tar Sands Development ............................................... 3-176

3.7.4-3 Occurrence of Species Listed or Candidates for Listing under the 

 Endangered Species Act That Occur in Counties with the Potential for 

 Oil Shale or Tar Sands Development .................................................................... 3-177

3.9.1-1 Cultural Resource Exclusion Areas Intersecting Oil Shale or Tar Sands 

 Areas ..................................................................................................................... 3-224

3.9.2-1 Site Types of Known Archaeological Sites in the Piceance Basin, Colorado ...... 3-229

3.9.2-2 Eligibility Status of Known Archaeological Sites in the Piceance Basin, 

 Colorado ................................................................................................................ 3-229

3.9.3-1 Cultural Affiliations of Known Archaeological Sites in the Uinta Basin, 

 Utah ....................................................................................................................... 3-231

3.9.3-2 Eligibility Status of Known Archaeological Sites in the Uinta Basin, 

 Utah ....................................................................................................................... 3-231

3.9.4-1 Site Types of Known Archaeological Sites in the Green River and 

 Washakie Basins, Wyoming ................................................................................. 3-234

3.9.4-2 Eligibility Status of Known Archaeological Sites in the Green River and 

 Washakie Basins, Wyoming ................................................................................. 3-234

3.9.5-1 Site Types of Known Archaeological Sites in the 11 Special Tar Sand 

 Areas, Utah ........................................................................................................... 3-237

3.9.5-2 Eligibility Status of Known Archaeological Sites in the 11 Special Tar 

 Sand Areas, Utah .................................................................................................. 3-239

3.11.2-1 Jurisdictions Included in Each ROI ...................................................................... 3-252

3.11.2-2 State and ROI Total Employment Data ................................................................ 3-253

3.11.2-3 State and ROI Unemployment Data ..................................................................... 3-254

3.11.2-4 State and ROI Employment by Industry, 2009 ..................................................... 3-255

3.11.2-5 State and ROI Personal Income ............................................................................ 3-257
Final OSTS PEIS 

xviii 

TABLES (Cont.) 

3.11.2-6 State and ROI Population...................................................................................... 3-262

3.11.2-7 ROI Urban Population and Income for the Colorado ROI ................................... 3-263

3.11.2-8 ROI Urban Population and Income for the Utah ROI .......................................... 3-264

3.11.2-9 ROI Urban Population and Income for the Wyoming ROI .................................. 3-267

3.11.2-10 ROI Housing Characteristics ................................................................................ 3-269

3.11.2-11 State and ROI Public Service Expenditures .......................................................... 3-272

3.11.2-12 State and ROI Local Government Employment, 2009 ......................................... 3-273

3.11.2-13 State and ROI Public Health Employment, 2010 ................................................. 3-274

3.11.2-14 State and ROI Education Data, 2010 .................................................................... 3-274

3.11.2-15 State and ROI Crime Rates ................................................................................... 3-278

3.11.2-16 State Indices of Social Change, 2004 ................................................................... 3-278

3.11.3-1 ROI Recreation Sector Activity, 2004 .................................................................. 3-282

3.11.4-1 Baseline Average Daily Traffic Data for Study Area Roads ................................ 3-283

3.12-1 Minority and Low-Income Populations in the Oil Shale Resource Area 

 and Buffer ............................................................................................................. 3-286

3.12-2 Minority and Low-Income Populations in the Tar Sands Resource Area 

 and Buffer ............................................................................................................. 3-287
Final OSTS PEIS 

xix 

NOTATION 

The following is a list of acronyms and abbreviations, chemical names, and units of 

measure used in this document. Some acronyms used only in tables may be defined only in those 

tables. 

GENERAL ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 

ACEC Area of Critical Environmental Concern 

AGR aboveground retort 

AIRFA American Indian Religious Freedom Act 

AMSO American Shale Oil, LLC 

ANFO ammonium nitrate and fuel oil 

APE Area of Potential Effects 

API American Petroleum Institute 

APLIC Avian Power Line Interaction Committee 

APP Avian Protection Plan 

AQRV air quality–related value 

ARCO Atlantic Richfield Company 

ATP Alberta Taciuk Process 

ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry 

AWEA American Wind Energy Association 

AZGFD Arizona Game and Fish Department 

BA biological assessment 

BCD barrels per calendar day 

BLM Bureau of Land Management 

BMP best management practice

BO biological opinion 

BOR U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 

BPA Bonneville Power Administration 

BSD barrels per stream day 

BTEX benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes 

CAA Clean Air Act 

CAPP Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers 

CARB California Air Resources Board 

CASTNET Clean Air Status and Trends Network 

CBOSC Cathedral Bluffs Oil Shale Company 

CCRTM Conduction, Convection, and Reflux 

CCW coal combustion waste 

CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

CDOT Colorado Department of Transportation 

CDOW Colorado Division of Wildlife (now Colorado Parks and Wildlife) 
Final OSTS PEIS 

xx 

CDPHE Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment 

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CHAT Critical Habitat Assessment Tool 

CHL combined hydrocarbon lease

CIRA Cooperative Institute for Research in the Atmosphere 

CNHP Colorado Natural Heritage Program 

COGCC Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission

CPC Center for Plant Conservation 

CPW Colorado Parks and Wildlife (formerly Colorado Division of Wildlife) 

CRBSCF Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum 

CRD Comment Response Document 

CRSCP Colorado River Salinity Control Program 

CRWQIP Colorado River Water Quality Improvement Program 

CSS cyclic steam stimulation 

CSU Controlled Surface Use 

CWA Clean Water Act 

CWCB Colorado Water Conservation Board 

CWS Canadian Wildlife Service 

DoD U.S. Department of Defense 

DOE U.S. Department of Energy 

DOI U.S. Department of the Interior 

DOL U.S. Department of Labor 

DOT U.S. Department of Transportation 

DRMS Division of Reclamation Mining & Safety (Colorado) 

DRUA Dispersed Recreation Use Area 

EA environmental assessment 

EGL EGL Resources, Inc. 

EIA Energy Information Administration 

E-ICP bare electrode in situ conversion process 

EIS environmental impact statement 

EMF electric and magnetic field 

E.O. Executive Order 

EOR enhanced oil recovery 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

EPRI Electric Power Research Institute 

EQIP Environmental Quality Incentives Program 

ESA Endangered Species Act of 1973 

FAA Federal Aviation Administration 

FLPMA Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 

FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact 

FR Federal Register 
Final OSTS PEIS 

xxi 

FTE full-time equivalent 

FY fiscal year 

GCR gas combustion retort 

GHG greenhouse gas 

GIS geographic information system 

GPO Government Printing Office 

GSENM Grand Staircase–Escalante National Monument 

HAP hazardous air pollutant 

HAZCOM hazard communication 

HFC hydrofluorcarbon 

HMA Herd Management Area 

HMMH Harris Miller Miller & Hanson, Inc. 

I-70 Interstate 70 

IARC International Agency for Research on Cancer 

ICP in situ conversion process 

IEC International Electrochemical Commission 

IM Instructional Memorandum 

IPPC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 

ISA Instant Study Area 

ISWS Illinois State Water Survey 

IUCNNR International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources 

JMH CAP Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan 

KOP key observation point 

KSLA Known Sodium Leasing Area 

LAU Lynx Analysis Unit 

Ldn day-night average sound level 

Leq equivalent sound pressure level 

LETC Laramie Energy Technology Center 

LM Office of Legacy Management (DOE) 

LPG liquefied petroleum gas 

LWC lands having wilderness characteristics 

M&I municipal and industrial 

MFP Management Framework Plan 

MIG, Inc. Minnesota IMPLAN Group, Inc. 

MIS modified in situ recovery 

MLA Mineral Leasing Act 

MMC Multi Minerals Corporation 

MMTA Mechanically Mineable Trona Area

MOU Memorandum of Understanding 
Final OSTS PEIS 

xxii 

MPCA Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 

MSDS Material Safety Data Sheet 

MSHA Mine Safety and Health Administration 

MSL mean sea level 

MTR military training route

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

NADP National Atmospheric Deposition Program 

NAGPRA Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act 

NCA National Conservation Area 

NCDC National Climate Data Center 

NEC National Electric Code 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

NESHAP National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

NFS National Forest Service 

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 

NLCS National Landscape Conservation System 

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service 

NNHP Nevada Natural Heritage Program 

NOA Notice of Availability 

NOI Notice of Intent 

NORM naturally occurring radioactive materials 

NOSR Naval Oil Shale Reserves

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

NPS National Park Service 

NRA National Recreation Area 

NRHP National Register of Historic Places

NSC National Safety Council 

NSO No Surface Occupancy 

NTSA National Trails System Act 

NTT National Technical Team 

NWCC National Wind Coordinating Committee 

NWR National Wildlife Refuge 

OHV off-highway vehicle 

OOSI Occidental Oil Shale, Inc. 

OPEC Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries 

OSEC Oil Shale Exploration Company 

OSEW/SPP Oil Sands Expert Workgroup/Security and Prosperity Partnership 

OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration 

OSTS oil shale and tar sands 

OTA Office of Technology Assessment

PA Programmatic Agreement 

PADD Petroleum Administration for Defense District 

PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon
Final OSTS PEIS 

xxiii 

PCB polychlorinated biphenyl

PEIS programmatic environmental impact statement 

PFC perfluorcarbons 

PFYC Potential Fossil Yield Classification 

PILT payment in lieu of taxes 

P.L. Public Law 

PM particulate matter 

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

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

PPE personal protective equipment 

PPH Preliminary Priority Habitat 

PRLA preference right lease area 

PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration

R&D research and development 

R&I relevance and importance 

RBOSC Rio Blanco Oil Shale Company 

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 

RD&D research, development, and demonstration 

RF radio frequency 

RFDS reasonably foreseeable development scenario 

RMP Resource Management Plan

ROD Record of Decision 

ROI region of influence 

ROS Recreation Opportunity Spectrum 

ROW right-of-way 

SAGD steam-assisted gravity drainage 

SAMHSA Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration 

SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 

SFC Synthetic Fuels Corporation

SHPO State Historic Preservation Office(r) 

SIP State Implementation Plan 

SMA Special Management Area 

SMP suggested management practice 

SPR Strategic Petroleum Reserve 

SRMA Special Recreation Management Area 

SSI self-supplied industry 

STSA Special Tar Sand Area 

SWCA SWCA, Inc., Environmental Consultants 

SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan 

SWWRC States West Water Resources Corporation 

TDS total dissolved solids 

THAI toe to head air injection 

TIS true in situ recovery 
Final OSTS PEIS 

xxiv 

TL timing limitation 

TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load

TOSCO The Oil Shale Corporation 

TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 

TSDF treatment, storage, and disposal facility 

UDEQ Utah Department of Environmental Quality 

UDNR Utah Department of Natural Resources 

UDWR Utah Division of Wildlife Resources 

UGS Utah Geological Survey 

UIC underground injection control 

ULP Uranium Leasing Program 

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

USC United States Code 

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture 

USFS U.S. Forest Service

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

USGCRP U.S. Global Change Research Program 

USGS U.S. Geological Survey 

VCRS Visual Contrast Rating System 

VOC volatile organic compound 

VRI Visual Resource Inventory 

VRM Visual Resource Management 

WDEQ Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality 

WEQC Wyoming Environmental Quality Council 

WGFD Wyoming Game and Fish Department 

WRAP Western Regional Air Partnership 

WRCC Western Regional Climate Center 

WRI World Resources Institute 

WRSOC White River Shale Oil Corporation 

WSA Wilderness Study Area 

WSR Wild and Scenic River 

WTGS wind turbine generator system

WYCRO Wyoming Cultural Records Office 

WYNDD Wyoming Natural Diversity Database 

CHEMICALS 

CH4 methane 

CO carbon monoxide 

CO2 carbon dioxide 

CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent 

H2S hydrogen sulfide 

NH3 ammonia 

NO2 nitrogen dioxide 
Final OSTS PEIS 

xxv 

N2O nitrous oxide 

NOx nitrogen oxides 

O3 ozone 

Pb lead

SF6 sulfur hexafluoride 

SO2 sulfur dioxide 

SOx sulfur oxides 

UNITS OF MEASURE 

ac-ft acre foot (feet) 

bbl barrel(s) 

Btu British thermal unit(s) 

C degree(s) Celsius 

cfs cubic foot (feet) per second 

cm centimeter(s) 

dB decibel(s) 

dBA A-weighted decibel(s) 

F degree(s) Fahrenheit 

ft foot (feet) 

ft3 cubic foot (feet) 

g gram(s) 

gal gallon(s) 

GJ gigajoule(s) 

gpd gallon(s) per day 

gpm gallon(s) per minute 

GW gigawatt(s) 

GWh gigawatt hour(s) 

h hour(s) 

ha hectare(s) 

hp horsepower 

Hz hertz 

in. inch(es) 

K degree(s) Kelvin 

kcal kilocalorie(s) 

kg kilogram(s) 

km kilometer(s) 

kPa kilopascal(s) 

kV kilovolt(s) 

kWh kilowatt-hour(s) 

L liter(s) 

lb pound(s) 

m meter(s) 

m2 square meter(s) 

m3 cubic meter(s) 

mg milligram(s) 

mi mile(s) 

mi2 square mile(s) 

mJ megajoule(s) 

mm millimeter(s) 

MMBtu million Btus 

mph mile(s) per hour 

MW megawatt(s) 

ppb part(s) per billion 

ppm part(s) per million 

ppmv part(s) per million by volume 

psi pound(s) per square inch 

rpm rotation(s) per minute 

s second(s) 

scf standard cubic foot (feet) 

yd2 square yard(s) 

yd3 cubic yard(s) 

yr year(s) 

μm micrometer(s) 
Final OSTS PEIS 

xxvi 

ENGLISH/METRIC AND METRIC/ENGLISH EQUIVALENTSa

 The following table lists the appropriate equivalents for English and metric units. 

Multiply By To Obtain 

 

English/Metric Equivalents 

 acres 0.4047 hectares (ha) 

 cubic feet (ft3) 0.02832 cubic meters (m3) 

 cubic yards (yd3) 0.7646 cubic meters (m3) 

 degrees Fahrenheit (oF) –32 0.5555 degrees Celsius (oC) 

 feet (ft) 0.3048 meters (m) 

 gallons (gal) 3.785 liters (L) 

 gallons (gal) 0.003785 cubic meters (m3) 

 inches (in.) 2.540 centimeters (cm) 

 miles (mi) 1.609 kilometers (km) 

 miles per hour (mph) 1.609 kilometers per hour (kph) 

 pounds (lb) 0.4536 kilograms (kg) 

 short tons (tons) 907.2 kilograms (kg) 

 short tons (tons) 0.9072 metric tons (t) 

 square feet (ft2) 0.09290 square meters (m2) 

 square yards (yd2) 0.8361 square meters (m2) 

 square miles (mi2) 2.590 square kilometers (km2) 

 yards (yd) 0.9144 meters (m) 

 

Metric/English Equivalents 

 centimeters (cm) 0.3937 inches (in.) 

 cubic meters (m3) 35.31 cubic feet (ft3) 

 cubic meters (m3) 1.308 cubic yards (yd3) 

 cubic meters (m3) 264.2 gallons (gal) 

 degrees Celsius (oC) +17.78 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit (oF) 

 hectares (ha) 2.471 acres 

 kilograms (kg) 2.205 pounds (lb) 

 kilograms (kg) 0.001102 short tons (tons) 

 kilometers (km) 0.6214 miles (mi) 

 kilometers per hour (kph) 0.6214 miles per hour (mph) 

 liters (L) 0.2642 gallons (gal) 

 meters (m) 3.281 feet (ft) 

 meters (m) 1.094 yards (yd) 

 metric tons (t) 1.102 short tons (tons) 

 square kilometers (km2) 0.3861 square miles (mi2) 

 square meters (m2) 10.76 square feet (ft2) 

 square meters (m2) 1.196 square yards (yd2) 

a In general in this PEIS, only English units are presented. However, 

where reference sources provided both English and metric units, both 

values are presented in the order in which they are given in the source. 

Where reference sources provided only metric units, only those units 

are presented. 
Final OSTS PEIS ES-1 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

ES.1 BACKGROUND TO THE PEIS 

In September 2008, pursuant to Section 369 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the 

Federal Land Management Policy Act of 1976 (FLPMA), and the National Environmental Policy 

Act of 1969 (NEPA), the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM), issued a Proposed Plan Amendments/Final Oil Shale and Tar Sands (OSTS) 

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) analyzing the environmental and 

socioeconomic impacts of amending 12 land use plans in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming to 

designate public lands administered by the BLM as available for commercial leasing for oil shale 

or tar sands development (BLM 2008a).1 The November 17, 2008, ROD that followed this PEIS 

adopted the proposed land use amendments reflecting the allocation decisions analyzed in the 

2008 OSTS PEIS (BLM 2008b). These land allocation decisions, which are currently in effect, 

were challenged in a lawsuit brought by a coalition of environmental organizations in 

January 2009. As part of a settlement agreement entered into by the United States to resolve the 

lawsuit and in light of new information that has emerged since the 2008 OSTS PEIS was 

prepared, the BLM decided to take a fresh look at the land allocations analyzed in the 

2008 OSTS PEIS, now covered under 10 land use plans after some consolidation, and to 

consider excluding certain lands from future leasing of oil shale and tar sands resources. 

Specifically, the BLM, through its planning process, has taken a hard look at whether it is 

appropriate for approximately 2,000,000 acres to remain available for potential development 

of oil shale and approximately 431,000 acres of public land to remain available for potential 

development of tar sands. 

In February 2012, the BLM issued a Draft PEIS (BLM 2012) in which the agency 

proposed to amend 10 land use plans in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming to describe those areas 

that will be open and those that will be closed to application for commercial leasing, exploration, 

and development of oil shale and tar sands resources. The analyses in the Draft PEIS were 

developed to evaluate the effects of this proposed action and its alternatives. This Proposed Plan 

Amendments/Final PEIS analyzes alternatives revised on the basis of public and internal 

comments received on the Draft PEIS. The proposed Plan Amendments herein would revise 

the current land use plans in the study area, which describe land allocations analyzed in the 

2008 OSTS PEIS and approved in the subsequent ROD (BLM 2008a,b). 

As noted above, the BLM decided to reconsider the 2008 allocations. The purpose and 

need for this proposed planning action is to reassess the appropriate mix of allowable uses with 

respect to oil shale and tar sands leasing and potential development in light of Congress’s policy 

emphasis on these resources. Specifically, the BLM will consider amending the applicable 

Resource Management Plans (RMPs) to specify whether any areas in Colorado, Utah, and 

Wyoming currently open for application for future leasing and development of oil shale or tar 

 

1 While the 2008 Record of Decision (ROD) amended 12 land use plans, some of these plans were subsequently 

incorporated into revised plans. Therefore, the study area is now covered by 10 land use plans that are being 

considered for amendment in this planning process. 
Final OSTS PEIS ES-2 

sands should not be available for such application for leasing and development. The BLM’s 

focus in this planning initiative is on potential development of oil shale and tar sands as sources 

of energy consistent with congressional policy as expressed in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 

that a commercial leasing program be established for these resources. Tar sands also have a 

commercial use as paving material. The phrase “available for application for leasing” is used 

throughout the PEIS, rather than simply “available for leasing,” to highlight that, unlike the 

BLM’s practice with respect to oil and gas leasing, additional analysis, including but not limited 

to NEPA, the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA), and the Endangered Species 

Act of 1973 (ESA), would be required prior to the issuance of any lease of oil shale or tar sands. 

This Final PEIS and Proposed Plan Amendments contain analyses of the direct, indirect, 

and cumulative environmental, cultural, and socioeconomic impacts of the proposed action and 

alternatives. Preparation of this PEIS complies with the requirements of FLPMA, NEPA, the 

President’s Council on Environmental Quality’s (CEQ’s) NEPA implementing regulations, the 

BLM’s land use planning regulations contained in Part 1600 of Title 43 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (43 CFR Part 1600), the BLM’s Land Use Planning Handbook (H-1601-1) 

(BLM 2005), and the BLM’s NEPA Handbook (H-1790-1) (BLM 2008c). 

ES.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE PLANNING AREA 

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

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

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

basis of the grade and thickness of the deposits within the Green River Formation. There are 

approximately 2.3 million acres of BLM-managed lands within this area that are the subject of 

this PEIS. For the tar sands resources, the study area, which coincides with the area considered 

to be the most geologically prospective for tar sands development, includes those locations in 

Utah previously designated as Special Tar Sand Areas (STSAs) in the geologic reports (minutes) 

prepared by the U.S. Geological Survey in 1980 (USGS 1980ak) and formalized by Congress 

in the Combined Hydrocarbon Leasing Act of 1981 (Public Law 97-78). The STSAs contain 

approximately 654,000 acres of BLM-managed lands. The PEIS study areas for both oil shale 

and tar sands include public lands administered by the BLM where the federal government owns 

both the surface estate and subsurface mineral rights and where the federal government owns the 

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

(i.e., split estate lands). 

ES.3 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 

A Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare a PEIS and possible land use plan amendments for

allocation of oil shale and tar sands resources on lands administered by the BLM in Colorado, 

Utah, and Wyoming was published in the Federal Register on April 14, 2011 (BLM 2011). The 

NOI articulated a preliminary purpose and need for the proposed action of amending land use 

plans, identified planning criteria, initiated the public scoping process, and invited interested 
Final OSTS PEIS ES-3 

members of the public to provide comments on the scope and objectives of the PEIS, including 

identification of issues and alternatives that should be considered in the PEIS analyses. 

During the scoping period, the BLM conducted public meetings in April and May of 

2011, in Salt Lake City, Vernal, and Price, Utah; Rock Springs and Cheyenne, Wyoming; and 

Rifle and Denver, Colorado. Approximately 28,800 people participated in the scoping process by 

attending public meetings and/or submitting comments. The BLM published a scoping report in 

October 2011 summarizing and categorizing issues, concerns, and comments, and considered 

them in developing the alternatives in this 2012 PEIS. A summary of scoping comments is 

provided in Section J.3 of Appendix J of this document. 

The BLM published a Notice of Availability (NOA) for the 2012 Draft PEIS on 

February 3, 2012, and announced a 90-day public comment period that closed on May 4, 2012. 

Open house meetings were held during March 2012 to provide additional information on the 

Draft PEIS. Approximately 160,000 comment letters were received, about 600 of them contained 

substantive comments and roughly 160,000 appeared to be similar or identical to one another 

(i.e., form letters). Comments on the Draft PEIS received from the public and cooperating 

agencies were considered and incorporated, as appropriate, into the proposed plan amendments. 

Issues identified in the comments include air quality, climate change, water quality and quantity, 

socioeconomic concerns, wildlife concerns, and cultural resources concerns, as well as concerns 

related to the agency’s compliance with FLPMA, NEPA, and the Energy Policy Act of 2005. 

These issues are summarized and the resolution of them described in the Comment Response 

Document in Volume 5 of this document (the Comment Response Document is on a CD at the 

back of Volume 5). 

Comments on the Draft RMP Amendments/Draft PEIS received from the public, 

cooperating agencies, other federal agencies, as well as internal BLM review were considered 

and information incorporated, as appropriate, into this Proposed RMP Amendments/Final PEIS. 

As a result of public comments and upon further review, corrections/revisions were made to the 

alternatives, and changes were made from what was presented as the Preferred Alternative in the 

Draft PEIS. These changes have resulted in a Proposed Plan Amendment that references new 

acreage figures. 

ES.4 COOPERATING AGENCIES 

The scope of the Proposed Land Use Plan Amendments for Allocation of Oil Shale and Tar 

Sands Resources on Lands Administered by the Bureau of Land Management in Colorado, Utah, and 

Wyoming and Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement is of interest to numerous 

federal, tribal, state, and local governments. The BLM invited 55 agencies to participate in the 

preparation of the PEIS as cooperating agencies. Fourteen agencies expressed an interest in 

participating as cooperating agencies, and Memoranda of Understanding between these agencies 

and the BLM were established. The following agencies are participating as cooperating agencies 

in the preparation of this PEIS: 

• National Park Service (NPS); 
Final OSTS PEIS ES-4 

• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS); 

• State of Colorado Department of Natural Resources (Colorado DNR) and 

Department of Public Health and the Environment (CDPHE); 

• State of Utah; 

• State of Wyoming; 

• Garfield County, Colorado; 

• City of Rifle, Colorado; 

• Carbon County, Utah; 

• Duchesne County, Utah; 

• Grand County, Utah; 

• Uintah County, Utah; 

• Lincoln County, Wyoming; 

• Sweetwater County, Wyoming; and 

• Coalition of Local Governments. 

The roles and responsibilities of these cooperating agencies, and the extent of interactions 

between them and the BLM, are discussed in Chapter 7. 

ES.5 BLM’S OIL SHALE AND TAR SANDS LEASING PROGRAM 

Under all programmatic oil shale and tar sands alternatives analyzed in this PEIS, land use 

plans would continue to (under the No Action Alternative) or be amended to (1) identify the 

most geologically prospective oil shale or tar sands resources within each planning unit, 

(2) designate lands within the most geologically prospective areas as available or not available 

for leasing, and (3) identify any technology restrictions. In addition, the following decisions from 

the 2008 ROD will be carried forward through this planning process: the requirement for future 

consultation activities, as well as compliance with all pertinent laws, regulations, and policies, 

including NEPA, NHPA, and ESA analyses; and the specific decision that the BLM will 

consider and give priority to the use of land exchanges to facilitate commercial oil shale 

development pursuant to Section 369(n) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. 
Final OSTS PEIS ES-5 

In summary, the PEIS is analyzing an allocation decision, the amendment of 10 existing 

land use plans to designate certain public lands as open, and certain other lands as closed for 

application for future oil shale and tar sands leasing. 

The BLM anticipates that oil shale development would proceed in a three-step 

decisionmaking process similar to that used for federal onshore oil and gas: (1) land use 

planning (i.e., amending RMPs), (2) leasing, and (3) project development. In the present 

experimental stage of the oil shale and tar sands industries, however, the BLM believes that 

the stages of NEPA compliance will be different from those used in oil and gas. 

If and when applications to lease are received and accepted, the BLM will conduct 

additional required analyses, including consideration of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects, 

reasonable alternatives, and possible mitigation measures, as well as assessment of the level 

of development that may be anticipated. On the basis of that analysis of future lease 

application(s), the BLM will establish general lease stipulations and best management practices 

(BMPs) and amend those plans, if necessary. After a lease is authorized, actual development will 

require additional analysis to address the site-specific conditions of the proposed development 

and to develop mitigating measures. 

ES.6 ALTERNATIVES 

ES.6.1 Alternative 1, No Action Alternative, No Change to 2008 Decision, Oil Shale 

Under Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative, no existing land use plans would be 

amended. In 2008, the BLM designated a total of 2,017,714 acres2 as available for application 

for commercial oil shale leasing and 430,686 acres available for commercial tar sands leasing 

(see Figures 2.3.2-1, 2.3.2-2, and 2.3.2-3 for Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming, respectively, in 

Chapter 2 of this document). The lands available for lease under the 2008 land use plan 

amendment decisions would remain available for future leasing consideration under the 

No Action Alternative. These public lands comprise the most geologically prospective oil shale 

and tar sands areas administered by the BLM, including split estate lands where the federal 

government owns the mineral rights, but excluding lands that are exempted by statute, 

regulation, or Executive Order. 

ES.6.2 Alternative 1, No Action Alternative, No Change to 2008 Decision, Tar Sands 

Under this alternative, no existing land use plans would be amended. In 2008, the BLM 

designated a total of 430,686 acres as available for applications for commercial tar sands leasing. 

The lands available for lease under the 2008 land use plan amendment decisions would remain 

available for future leasing consideration under Alternative 1, no action. 

 

2 This amount includes the total potential research, development, and demonstration (RD&D) lease acreage of 

30,720 acres. 
Final OSTS PEIS ES-6 

ES.6.3 Alternative 2, Oil Shale Conservation Focus Alternative (2a), and with 

RD&D First Requirement (2b), Oil Shale 

Under this alternative, eight land use plans in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming would be 

amended to designate 676,967 acres as available for future commercial oil shale leasing. This 

alternative would exclude from commercial oil shale leasing the following categories or groups 

of categories of public lands and/or their resource values that may warrant protection from 

potential oil shale leasing and development: 

1. All areas that the BLM has identified or may identify as a result of inventories 

conducted during this planning process, as lands having wilderness 

characteristics (LWC); 

2. The whole of the Adobe Town “Very Rare or Uncommon” area, as designated 

by the Wyoming Environment Quality Council on April 10, 2008 

(180,910 acres total; 167,517 acres of public land, of which 10,920 acres are 

already a BLM Wilderness Study Area [WSA]); 

3. Core or priority sage-grouse habitat, as defined by such guidance as the BLM 

or the DOI may issue (except in Wyoming, where such habitat protections 

will be consistent with Wyoming’s Greater Sage-Grouse Core Area Protection 

Strategy); 

4. All Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) located within the 

areas analyzed in the 2008 OSTS PEIS (76,666 acres in existing ACECs in 

the 2008 OSTS PEIS plus additional ACEC acreages as a result of Utah and 

Wyoming planning efforts recently completed);3,4 and 

5. All areas identified as excluded from commercial oil shale and tar sands 

leasing in Alternative C of the September 2008 OSTS PEIS (Alternative C 

made 830,296 acres available for potential commercial oil shale leasing and 

229,038 acres available for potential commercial tar sands leasing). 

RD&D First Requirement (2b). Under this alternative, the lands open for future leasing 

consideration would be the same as those in Alternative 2(a), but only for RD&D leases. The 

BLM would issue a commercial lease only when a lessee satisfies the conditions of its RD&D 

lease and the regulations at 43 CFR Subpart 3926 for conversion to a commercial lease. The 

preference right acreage, if any, which would be included in the converted lease, would be 

specified in the RD&D lease. 

 

3 This would only include those ACECs that were formally designated in those plans. ACECs that were proposed, 

but not formally designated in the applicable plans undergoing revision/amendment at that time, would not be 

considered for closure. 

4 With respect to any new potential ACECs, the Rock Springs Field Office has not yet completed its ACEC report. 

Any decisions regarding designation and management of ACECs will be made by the Rock Springs Field Office 

through its land use planning process. 
Final OSTS PEIS ES-7 

 The environmental impacts of Alternative 2(b) would be analytically indistinguishable from 

those of Alternative 2(a). Only the method of obtaining a lease would be different. Accordingly, the 

analysis in this PEIS of Alternative 2 applies fully and equally to both alternatives. To the extent 

there may be differences in environmental consequences between Alternative 2(a) and 2(b), these 

would be related to the timing of the commencement of impacts, as well as, possibly, length of 

disturbance. However, these issues are best addressed in the lease and/or project-specific analysis. 

ES.6.4 Alternative 2, Conservation Focus Alternative, Tar Sands 

Under this alternative, four land use plans in Utah would be amended to designate 

129,567 acres as available for future commercial tar sands leasing. This alternative would exclude 

from commercial tar sands leasing the same categories or groups of categories of public lands and/or 

their resource values as listed above under Alternative 2, Oil Shale, as apply in the tar sands areas in 

Utah. 

ES.6.5 Alternative 3, Oil Shale Research Lands Focus (RD&D with PRLA only), Oil Shale 

Under Alternative 3, eight land use plans would be amended such that public lands for 

commercial leasing would be available only where there were existing RD&D leases at the time the 

ROD for the 2012 Final OSTS PEIS is signed. The six current RD&D leases contain terms and 

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

preference right lease area (PRLA) totaling 32,968 acres. A second round of solicitations of interest 

in RD&D leases was issued by the BLM on November 3, 2009 (74 FR 56867). Three nomination 

packages were submitted and selected for further consideration. The projects that were selected 

include two projects in the Piceance Basin, Colorado (one from Exxon-Mobil Exploration Company 

and one from Natural Soda Holdings, Inc.) and one project in the Uintah Basin, Utah, submitted by 

Aurasource. Aurasource, the company in Utah, has not indicated a willingness to move forward in 

the lease approval process. While the two Colorado leases have not yet been approved or issued, 

they are presented in this Final PEIS as approved, which shows what the allocation would look 

like, should these RD&D leases be issued. Maximum acreage of these three leases, if approved, 

would be 1,920 acres, bringing the total acreage to 34,888 acres as available for potential oil shale 

leasing under this alternative. 

ES.6.6 Alternative 3, Pending Commercial Lease, Tar Sands 

Because there is no specific “RD&D” program for tar sands, this alternative would also 

analyze foregoing the leasing of tar sands for the commercial development of fluid mineral resources, 

entirely, except for one tar sands lease currently under consideration. The Asphalt Ridge tar sands 

lease application is located approximately 11 mi south of Vernal, Utah, and the expression of 

commercial leasing interest that forms its basis was submitted on November 16, 2009. This 

prospective lease is for a commercial tar sands project and covers approximately 2,100 acres. 

ES.6.7 Alternative 4, 2008 Moderate Development Alternative (4a), and with RD&D First 

Requirement (4b), Oil Shale 

Under Alternative 4, the BLM would amend eight land use plans in Colorado, Utah, 

and Wyoming to designate between 1,384,237 and 1,968,079 acres as available for future 
Final OSTS PEIS ES-8 

consideration for leasing for commercial oil shale leasing.5 This alternative would exclude from 

commercial oil shale or tar sands leasing: 

1. The whole of the Adobe Town “Very Rare or Uncommon” area, as designated 

by the Wyoming Environment Quality Council on April 10, 2008 

(180,910 acres total; 167,517 acres of public land, of which 10,920 acres are 

already a BLM WSA). 

2. All ACECs located within the areas analyzed in the 2008 OSTS PEIS 

(76,666 acres in existing ACECs in 2008 OSTS PEIS plus additional ACEC 

acreages as a result of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming planning efforts recently 

completed).6

RD&D First Requirement (4b). Under this alternative, the lands open for future leasing 

consideration would be the same as those in Alternative 4(a) but only for RD&D leases. The 

BLM would issue a commercial lease only when a lessee satisfies the conditions of its RD&D 

lease and the regulations at 43 CFR Subpart 3926 for conversion to a commercial lease. The 

preference right acreage, if any, which would be included in the converted lease, would be 

specified in the RD&D lease. 

The environmental impacts of Alternative 4(b) would be analytically indistinguishable 

from those of Alternative 4(a). Only the method of obtaining a lease would be different. 

Accordingly, the analysis in this PEIS of Alternative 4 applies fully and equally to both 

alternatives. To the extent there may be differences in environmental consequences between 

Alternative 4(a) and 4(b), these would be related to the timing of commencement of impacts, as 

well as, possibly, length of disturbance. However, these issues are best addressed in the lease 

and/or project-specific analysis. 

ES.6.8 Alternative 4, Tar Sands Moderate Development Alternative, Tar Sands 

Under Alternative 4, the BLM would amend four land use plans in Utah to designate 

between 283,331 and 435,369 acres as available for application for commercial tar sands 

leasing.5 This alternative would exclude from commercial oil shale or tar sands leasing the same 

two categories of lands listed above for oil shale Alternative 4. However, no prospective tar 

sands areas fall with the excluded Adobe Town “Very Rare or Uncommon” area in Wyoming. 

 

5 This alternative satisfies the settlement agreement to exclude some, but not all, lands from the application of oil 

shale and tar sands leasing, in comparison to Alternative 2. The acreage range shown corresponds to protection 

of up to 75% of core and priority sage-grouse habitat and identified LWC. 

6 This would only include those ACECs that were formally designated in those plans. ACECs that were proposed 

but not formally designated in the applicable plans undergoing revision/amendment at that time would not be 

considered for closure. 
Final OSTS PEIS ES-9 

ES.7 PROPOSED PLAN 

The 2012 Proposed RMP Amendments/Final PEIS presents four alternatives for 

allocation of oil shale (two of these include sub-alternatives) and four analogous alternatives for 

allocation of tar sands. Under Alternative 2(b), identified as the Preferred Alternative in the Draft 

RMP Amendments/Draft PEIS and carried forward as the Proposed Plan here, the lands open for 

future consideration for oil shale leasing would be the same as those in Alternative 2(a), but only 

for RD&D leases. Alternative 2(a), revised as described below, analyzes removing from possible 

oil shale and tar sands leasing the following lands: 

1. All areas that the BLM has identified or may identify as a result of inventories 

conducted during this planning process, as containing wilderness 

characteristics (acreage figures for LWC have been corrected from the 

erroneous figures included in the Draft RMP Amendments/Draft PEIS; no 

supplementation is required, as these lands were analyzed as open under 

Alternative 1); 

2. The whole of the Adobe Town “Very Rare or Uncommon” area, as designated 

by the Wyoming Environment Quality Council on April 10, 2008; 

3. Core or priority sage-grouse habitat, as defined by such guidance as the BLM 

or the DOI may issue. Under BLM’s Preferred Alternative in the Draft RMP 

Amendments/Draft PEIS, oil shale leasing and development would be 

excluded from greater sage-grouse core and priority habitat. On the basis of 

comments received on the Draft RMP Amendments/Draft PEIS, the BLM has 

concluded that such exclusion is not consistent with Wyoming’s Greater SageGrouse Core Area Protection Strategy under Wyoming’s Executive 

Order 2011-5, as has been recognized by the USFWS as an adequate 

regulatory mechanism for the conservation of greater sage-grouse, and has 

been adopted by the BLM Wyoming State Office. Thus, for the Proposed 

Plan, the BLM has modified the Alternative 2(b) approach to the greater 

sage-grouse core and priority habitat to be coordinated with the policy 

direction adopted by the BLM Wyoming State Office in BLM Instruction 

Memorandum WY-2012-019, Greater Sage-Grouse Habitat Management 

Policy on Wyoming Bureau of Land Management Administered Lands 

Including the Federal Mineral Estate, signed and dated February 10, 2012, 

which reflects coordination between the BLM and the State of Wyoming. 

Such modification would not require a supplement to the Draft PEIS, as these 

areas were analyzed as open for oil shale leasing and development under 

Alternative 1, the No Action alternative. While the lands would be open for 

leasing, that future leasing and development would be subject to applicable 

BLM land use plan decisions and guidance regarding management of sagegrouse habitat; 

4. All ACECs located within the areas analyzed in the September 2008 OSTS 

PEIS; and 
Final OSTS PEIS ES-10 

5. All areas identified as excluded from commercial oil shale and tar sands 

leasing in Alternative C of the September 2008 OSTS PEIS (the text has been 

clarified from that in the Draft RMP Amendments/Draft PEIS to reflect that 

the 2008 Alternative C only contemplated excluding then-existing ACECs 

from oil shale/tar sands development). 

In addition, the decisionmaking regarding the pending Asphalt Ridge tar sands leasing 

application has not yet been completed. In order to avoid pre-determining the outcome of that 

decisionmaking process, the lands encompassed by the pending lease application are included in 

the Proposed Plan Amendments as open and have been added to the acreage analyzed as open in 

Alternative 2. These lands were analyzed as open for leasing and development in Alternative 3 of 

the Draft PEIS. 

Further, the split estate lands (federal minerals, tribal surface) within the Hill Creek 

Extension of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation will remain open for potential oil shale and tar 

sands leasing and development. The ROD for the 2008 OSTS PEIS opened these lands for 

potential oil shale and tar sands leasing and development in accordance with the expressed desire 

of the Ute Indian Tribe. These lands were identified as closed under Alternative 2(b) in the Draft 

RMP Amendments/Draft PEIS. Closing these lands to potential leasing and development would 

be very different from how these lands have been managed, and the BLM does not have any 

indication from the Tribe that they would like to see this changed. 

Under the Proposed Plan Amendments, about 677,000 acres would be open for 

application for commercial oil shale leasing: about 26,000 acres in Colorado, 357,000 acres in 

Utah, and 293,000 acres in Wyoming. About 130,000 acres would be open for commercial tar 

sands leasing in Utah. 

ES.8 ANALYSIS OF THE IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PLAN AMENDMENT 

FOR OIL SHALE AND TAR SANDS 

As was the case with the 2008 OSTS PEIS, the scope of the decisionmaking to be 

supported by the development of this PEIS is limited to an allocation decision. The analysis of 

potential impacts associated with oil shale and tar sands development in Chapters 4, 5, and 6 is 

programmatic in character and designed to disclose the potential impacts from future leasing and 

development, in order to provide the decision maker the available, essential information for 

making the allocation decision. 
Final OSTS PEIS ES-11 

ES.9 REFERENCES 

Note to Reader: This list of references identifies Web pages and associated URLs where 

reference data were obtained. It is likely that at the time of publication of this PEIS, some of 

these Web pages may no longer be available or their URL addresses may have changed. 

BLM (Bureau of Land Management), 2005, Land Use Planning Handbook, BLM Handbook 

H-1601-1, Washington, D.C., March. 

BLM, 2008a, Proposed Oil Shale and Tar Sands Resource Management Plan Amendments to 

Address Land Use Allocation in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming and Final Programmatic 

Environmental Impact Statement, FES 08-32, Sept. 

BLM, 2008b, Approved Resource Management Plan Amendments/Record of Decision (ROD) for 

Oil Shale and Tar Sands Resources To Address Land Use Allocations in Colorado, Utah, and 

Wyoming and Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Nov., 17. 

BLM, 2008c, National Environmental Policy Act Handbook, BLM Handbook H-1790-1, 

Washington, D.C., Jan. 

BLM, 2011, “Notice of Intent To Prepare a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement 

(EIS) and Possible Land Use Plan Amendments for Allocation of Oil Shale and Tar Sands 

Resources on Lands Administered by the Bureau of Land Management in Colorado, Utah, and 

Wyoming,” Federal Register 76:21003–21005. 

BLM 2012, Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement and Possible Land Use Plan 

Amendments for Allocation of Oil Shale and Tar Sands Resources on Lands Administered by the 

Bureau of Land Management in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming, Vols. 1–4, DES 12-01, Jan. 

USGS (U.S. Geological Survey), 1980a, Argyle CanyonWillow Creek, Utah Tar Sand Leasing 

Minutes No. 9, Minutes of the Mineral Land Evaluation Committee, Nov. 10. 

USGS, 1980b, Asphalt RidgeWhiterocks and Vicinity, Utah Tar Sand Leasing Minutes No. 3, 

Minutes of the Mineral Land Evaluation Committee, Sept. 23. 

USGS, 1980c, Circle Cliffs East and West Flanks, Utah Tar Sand Leasing Minutes No. 5,

Minutes of the Mineral Land Evaluation Committee, Sept. 23. 

USGS, 1980d, Hill Creek, Utah Tar Sand Leasing Minutes No. 6, Minutes of the Mineral Land 

Evaluation Committee, Nov. 10. 

USGS, 1980e, Pariette, Utah Tar Sand Leasing Minutes, Minutes of the Mineral Land 

Evaluation Committee, Nov. 10. 

USGS, 1980f, P.R. Spring, Utah Tar Sand Leasing Minutes, Minutes of the Mineral Land 

Evaluation Committee, Sept. 23. 
Final OSTS PEIS ES-12 

USGS, 1980g, Raven RidgeRim Rock and Vicinity, Utah Tar Sand Leasing Minutes No. 8, 

Minutes of the Mineral Land Evaluation Committee, Nov. 10 

USGS, 1980h, San Rafael Swell, Utah Tar Sand Leasing Minutes No. 7, Minutes of the Mineral 

Land Evaluation Committee, Nov. 10. 

USGS, 1980i, Sunnyside and Vicinity, Utah Tar Sand Leasing Minutes No. 4, Minutes of the 

Mineral Land Evaluation Committee, Sept. 23. 

USGS, 1980j, Tar Sand Triangle, Utah Tar Sand Leasing Minutes No. 2, Minutes of the Mineral 

Land Evaluation Committee, Sept. 23. 

USGS, 1980k, White Canyon, Utah Tar Sand Leasing Minutes No. 11, Minutes of the Mineral 

Land Evaluation Committee, Nov. 10. 
Final OSTS PEIS 1-1 

1 INTRODUCTION 

 The U.S. Department of the Interior 

(DOI), Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 

proposes to amend 10 land use plans in 

Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming, pursuant to 

the provisions of the Federal Land Policy 

and Management Act of 1976 as amended 

(FLPMA) (United States Code, Title 43, 

Section 1701 et seq. [43 USC 1701 et seq.]), 

and BLM planning regulations at Title 43, 

Part 1600, of the Code of Federal Regulations

(43 CFR Part 1600), to designate public 

lands managed by the BLM as available or 

not available for application for commercial 

leasing for oil shale or tar sands development. 

This programmatic environmental impact 

statement (PEIS) is being prepared pursuant 

to Section 102 of the National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 USC 

4321 et seq.) to support that land use planning 

process. Prior to issuance of any commercial 

leases on lands that may be designated as 

available for application, the BLM must comply with all pertinent laws, regulations, and policies 

required to analyze the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the proposed lease(s) for 

development of oil shale or tar sands resources, including, but not limited to, NEPA, National 

Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA), and Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA). NEPA 

analysis and other appropriate review would also be required before approval of a lease and 

subsequent plan of development on a lease, which would include analysis of particular activities 

at the specific location where development would occur (see the Oil Shale and Tar Sands 

Development text box). Appropriate stipulations and mitigation measures would be identified as 

part of both of these subsequent NEPA analyses. 

 The BLM administers approximately 245 million acres of public lands and 

700 million acres of subsurface mineral estate in the United States. Management of these public 

lands must be conducted in accordance with the requirements of FLPMA (43 USC 1701 et seq.) 

and many other public laws. FLPMA requires the BLM to develop land use plans, also called 

Resource Management Plans (RMPs), to guide the management of the public lands it 

administers. In order for a commercial leasing program to occur on the public lands, the land use 

plans for the areas where leasing could occur must provide for such leasing. 

 In Section 369 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Public Law (P.L.) 109-58, also known 

as the “Oil Shale, Tar Sands, and Other Strategic Unconventional Fuels Act of 2005,” Congress 

declared that oil shale and tar sands (and other unconventional fuels) are strategically important 

domestic energy resources that should be developed to reduce the nation’s growing dependence 

Allocation

A land use allocation identifies activities and 

foreseeable development that are allowed, 

restricted, or excluded for specific areas covered by 

a land use plan. Lands identified as open to oil 

shale and tar sands development as a result of the 

analyses in this PEIS are those lands within which 

the BLM will accept future lease and subsequent 

project development applications for review. This 

land use allocation does not authorize any future 

lease or development proposal. BLM managers 

retain authority to approve, modify, or deny future 

lease and development proposals based on 

consideration of factors, including, but not limited 

to, impacts on natural and cultural resources, 

economic viability, community concerns, and any 

other pertinent factors. Land use planning 

decisions may be amended, and nothing in the 

decision based on this PEIS precludes the option to 

amend plans in the future. 
Final OSTS PEIS 1-2 

Oil Shale and Tar Sands Development 

The BLM anticipates that oil shale and tar sands development would proceed in a 

decisionmaking process with three steps: (1) land use planning, (2) leasing, and 

(3) approval of a plan of development. 

Land Use Planning: This PEIS is making decisions about which lands are 

allocated as open or closed to oil shale/tar sands development. Lands allocated as 

open are those within which the Secretary may initiate a call for nominations, to 

which project proponents may respond by submitting applications to lease lands 

where they propose to develop specific projects. The current experimental state of 

the oil shale and tar sands industries does not allow this PEIS to include sufficient 

specific information or cumulative impact analyses to support future leasing 

decisions within these allocated lands. 

Leasing: Leasing is a federal action subject to all pertinent laws, regulations, and 

policies, including, but not limited to, the requirements of NEPA, NHPA, and 

ESA. The BLM must also review the technical and due diligence aspects of any 

proposal or ongoing activity, respectively, to ensure its initial and continued 

viability and must ensure the necessary coordination and consultation with other 

entities, including other federal agencies, tribes, states, local governments, and the 

public in its consideration of a lease application. The BLM’s consideration of a 

proposal for an oil shale or tar sands lease must be sufficient to take into account 

predictable impacts of the action on natural and cultural resources, as well as other 

potential effects. If and when applications to lease oil shale or tar sands for 

commercial development are received and accepted by the BLM, it may be 

necessary to develop a reasonably foreseeable development scenario (RFDS). An 

RFDS is a critical component for the effects analysis required by NEPA, but the 

information contained in this PEIS is too speculative to permit adequate RFDSs 

for future leasing proposals. The analyses conducted as part of the review for a 

lease application may result in a decision to approve, modify, or deny a lease. The 

BLM may authorize a lease with stipulations and requirements for best 

management practices, and may amend local land use plans if necessary. 

Project Development: After obtaining a lease, a project proponent must submit 

an application to approve a plan of development. The plan of development 

identifies the specifics of the development plan such as location, facilities, and 

timing. Approval of the plan of development is a federal action subject to all 

pertinent laws, regulations, and policies, including, but not limited to, the 

requirements of NEPA, NHPA, and ESA. The BLM must also review plans of 

development for other factors, including technical viability, and must ensure the 

appropriate consultation and coordination with other federal agencies, tribes, 

states, local governments, and the public. It is at this final stage, when the 

particulars of a project are known, that the BLM requires the most detailed 

analyses and may condition approval on specific requirements to avoid, minimize, 

or mitigate adverse impacts on various resources. 

 
Final OSTS PEIS 1-3 

on oil from politically and economically unstable foreign sources. In addition, Congress declared 

that both research- and commercial-scale development of oil shale and tar sands should (1) be 

conducted in an environmentally sound manner using management practices that will minimize 

potential impacts, (2) occur with an emphasis on sustainability, and (3) benefit the United States 

while taking into account concerns of the affected states and communities. To support this 

declaration of policy, Congress directed the Secretary of the Interior (the “Secretary”) to 

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

commercial leasing program for oil shale and tar sands. Those steps, contained in paragraphs (d), 

(e), and (n) of the Act, directed that the Secretary shall: 

• “...Complete a programmatic environmental impact statement for a 

commercial leasing program for oil shale and tar sands resources on public 

lands, with an emphasis on the most geologically prospective lands in 

Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming”; 

• “...Not later than 6 months after completion of the programmatic 

environmental impact statement...the Secretary shall publish a final regulation 

establishing such program”; 

• “...Consult with the Governors of States with significant oil shale and tar 

sands resources on public lands, representatives of local governments in such 

States, interested Indian Tribes, and other interested persons, to determine the 

level of support and interest in the States in the development of tar sands and 

oil shale resources”; and 

• “If the Secretary finds sufficient support and interest exists in a State, the 

Secretary may conduct a lease sale in that State under the commercial leasing 

program.” 

• Land Exchanges – (1) “... To facilitate the recovery of oil shale and tar sands, 

especially in areas where Federal, State, and private lands are intermingled, 

the Secretary shall consider the use of land exchanges where appropriate and 

feasible to consolidate land ownership and mineral interests into manageable 

areas”; (2) “...identify public lands containing deposits of oil shale or tar 

sands within the Green River, Piceance Creek, Uintah, and Washakie geologic 

basins, and shall give priority to implementing land exchanges in those 

basins.”; and, “a land exchange...shall be implemented in accordance with 

Section 206 of FLPMA.” 

 In September 2008, pursuant to Section 369 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, FLPMA, 

and NEPA, the BLM issued a Proposed Plan Amendments/Final Oil Shale and Tar Sands 

(OSTS) PEIS analyzing the environmental and socioeconomic impacts of amending 12 land use 

plans in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming to designate public lands administered by the BLM as 
Final OSTS PEIS 1-4 

available for commercial leasing for oil shale or tar sands development (BLM 2008a).1 The 

November 17, 2008, ROD that followed this PEIS adopted the proposed land use amendments 

reflecting the allocation decisions analyzed in the 2008 OSTS PEIS (BLM 2008b). These land 

allocation decisions, which are currently in effect, were challenged in a lawsuit brought by a 

coalition of environmental organizations in January 2009. As part of a settlement agreement 

entered into by the United States to resolve the lawsuit and in light of new information that has 

emerged since the 2008 OSTS PEIS was prepared, the BLM has decided to take a fresh look at 

the land allocations analyzed in the 2008 OSTS PEIS and to consider excluding certain lands 

from future leasing of oil shale and tar sands resources. Specifically, the BLM, through its 

planning process, intends to take a hard look at whether it is appropriate for approximately 

2,000,000 acres to remain available for potential development of oil shale and approximately 

431,000 acres of public land to remain available for potential development of tar sands. 

1.1 PURPOSE AND NEED 

 The BLM proposes to amend 10 land use plans in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming to 

describe those areas that will be open and those that will be closed to application for commercial 

leasing, exploration, and development of oil shale2 and tar sands resources. The analyses in this 

PEIS have been developed to evaluate the effects of this proposed action and its alternatives. The 

current land use plans in the study area describe land allocations analyzed in the 2008 OSTS 

PEIS and approved in the subsequent ROD (BLM 2008a,b). 

 As noted above, the BLM has decided to reconsider the 2008 allocations. The purpose 

and need for this proposed planning action is to reassess the appropriate mix of allowable uses 

with respect to oil shale and tar sands leasing and potential development in light of Congress’s 

policy emphasis on these resources. Specifically, the BLM will consider amending the applicable 

RMPs to specify whether any areas in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming currently open for 

application for future leasing and development of oil shale or tar sands should not be available 

for such application for leasing and development. The BLM’s focus in this planning initiative is 

on potential development of oil shale and tar sands as sources of energy consistent with 

congressional policy as expressed in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 that a commercial leasing 

program be established for these resources. Tar sands also have a commercial use as paving 

material. The phrase “available for application for leasing” is used above, and throughout the 

PEIS, rather than simply “available for leasing” to highlight that, unlike the BLM’s practice with 

respect to oil and gas leasing, additional analysis, including but not limited to the NEPA, NHPA, 

and ESA, would be required prior to the issuance of any lease of oil shale or tar sands resources 

(see the Oil Shale and Tar Sands Development text box for more information). 

 

1 While the 2008 Record of Decision (ROD) amended 12 land use plans, some of these plans were subsequently 

incorporated into revised plans. Therefore, the study area is now covered by 10 land use plans, which are being 

considered for amendment in this planning process. 

2 See the description of oil shale in Section 2.3 of this document. This PEIS does not address opening or closing 

lands to development of other resources or the hydraulic fracturing of other types of shale for the production of 

oil and gas. 
Final OSTS PEIS 1-5 

1.1.1 Specific Scope and Objectives of the PEIS 

 This Proposed Land Use Plan Amendments for Allocation of Oil Shale and Tar Sands 

Resources on Lands Administered by the Bureau of Land Management in Colorado, Utah, and 

Wyoming and Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement has been prepared pursuant 

to the requirements of FLPMA; NEPA; the President’s Council on Environmental Quality’s 

(CEQ’s) NEPA implementing regulations; the BLM’s land use planning regulations contained 

in 43 CFR Part 1600; the BLM’s Land Use Planning Handbook (H-1601-1) (BLM 2005); the 

Department of the Interior NEPA Implementing Regulations contained in 43 CFR Part 46; and 

the BLM’s NEPA Handbook (H-1790-1) (BLM 2008c).

 

 On April 14, 2011, the BLM published in the Federal Register a Notice of Intent (NOI) 

to engage in land use planning and to prepare a new PEIS. That notice provided several reasons 

why the agency decided to take a fresh look at land use allocations made in the 2008 ROD. 

Chief among these was new information not available in 2008, including a recently completed 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in-place assessment of oil shale and nahcolite resources in 

Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming (USGS 2010a,b; 2011) and a March 2010 U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (USFWS) Notice of Petition Findings, Endangered Wildlife and Plants, 12-Month 

Findings to List the Greater Sage-Grouse as Threatened or Endangered (75 FR 13910), 

concluding that while listing was warranted, it was precluded by higher priority listing actions. 

The BLM is currently engaged in a National Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy to identify 

necessary conservation measures and management restrictions for the maintenance and recovery 

of sage-grouse populations. As part of this sage-grouse planning process in Colorado, Utah, and 

Wyoming, the BLM is identifying those areas open or closed to mineral leasing and development 

and for those areas open to leasing, identifying major or moderate constraints (management 

actions) that may be required to mitigate impacts on sage-grouse or their habitat. In addition, the 

BLM has recently completed updating its inventory of lands having wilderness characteristics 

(LWC) (please note that acreage errors in the Draft PEIS have been corrected in this document) 

in each of the three states for the planning area. Furthermore, the status of several areas 

originally proposed to be Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) in Utah has 

changed since the preparation of the 2008 OSTS PEIS. In light of the combined weight of these 

several developments, as well as other policy considerations, the BLM has decided to take 

another look at the land use plan allocations made in the 2008 ROD. 

 As was the case with the 2008 OSTS PEIS, the scope of the decisionmaking to be 

supported by the development of this PEIS is limited to an allocation decision. The analysis of 

potential impacts associated with oil shale and tar sands development in Chapters 4, 5, and 6 is 

programmatic in character and designed to disclose the potential impacts from future leasing 

and development, in order to provide the decision maker the available, essential information for 

making the allocation decision. 

 Consideration was also given to the possibility that the BLM might be able to 

issue additional research, development, and demonstration (RD&D) leases in the future. 

Section 369(c) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 authorized the Secretary to make lands 

available to conduct research and development activities. Because impacts from new RD&D 

projects are expected to be qualitatively similar to those of commercial oil shale projects, but 
Final OSTS PEIS 1-6 

smaller in scale until an RD&D lease is converted to a commercial lease and expanded to 

preference right acreage, land that will be open for commercial oil shale leasing will also be 

open for RD&D leasing. Therefore, although the term “commercial oil shale leasing” is used 

throughout this PEIS, this term is meant to encompass the issuance of RD&D leases as well. 

 The BLM also concluded that, as in the 2008 OSTS PEIS and ROD, the NEPA and other 

applicable analyses supporting this planning initiative do not provide the required analyses for 

new RD&D leasing or conversion of RD&D leases to commercial leases. Rather, subsequent 

NEPA and other analyses at the leasing stage (whether oil shale, tar sands, or RD&D) will be 

required to determine the character and extent of the effect of oil shale and tar sands 

development when more specific information is known about the specific technologies being 

proposed and associated environmental consequences in the locations being proposed. 

 The BLM anticipates that oil shale development would proceed in a three-step 

decisionmaking process similar to that used for federal onshore oil and gas: (1) land use planning 

(i.e., amending RMPs), (2) leasing, and (3) project development. In the present experimental 

stage of the oil shale and tar sands industries, however, the BLM believes that the stages of 

NEPA compliance will be different from those used in oil and gas (see text box describing these 

steps). 

 As a result of the maturity of the oil and gas industry, the BLM is often able to include 

sufficient site-specific analysis in its NEPA documentation for amendments to RMPs so that an 

additional NEPA document is not required for issuing an oil and gas lease in conformance with 

the RMP. Nonetheless, the BLM also prepares a NEPA analysis before approving a plan of 

development or a drilling permit that would authorize significant disturbance of the leased area. 

The NEPA analysis for both decision levels includes cumulative effects analysis. Analysis of 

each oil and gas decision is based on technical information associated with the particular 

proposed action, as well as information about other reasonably foreseeable future actions in 

and near the area of the proposal. 

 In contrast, the present experimental state of the oil shale and tar sands industries does 

not allow this PEIS for land use plan amendments to include sufficient site-specific information 

or cumulative impact analysis to support issuance of a lease. Accordingly, prior to any actual oil 

shale or tar sands leasing, additional NEPA and other applicable analyses will be required. Those 

analyses could result in decisions not to lease in specific areas or to lease in particular areas with 

stipulations, such as a stipulation precluding disturbance of the surface. 

 Under all programmatic oil shale and tar sands alternatives analyzed in this PEIS, land 

use plans would continue to (under the No Action Alternative) or be amended to (1) identify the 

most geologically prospective oil shale or tar sands resources within each planning unit, 

(2) designate lands within the most geologically prospective areas as available or not available 

for leasing, and (3) identify any technology restrictions. In addition, the following decisions from 

the 2008 ROD will be carried forward through this planning process: the requirement for future 

consultation activities, as well as compliance with all pertinent laws, regulations, and policies, 

including NEPA, NHPA, and ESA analyses; and the specific decision that the BLM will 
Final OSTS PEIS 1-7 

consider and give priority to the use of land exchanges to facilitate commercial oil shale 

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

 In summary, the PEIS is analyzing an allocation decision, the amendment of 10 existing 

land use plans to designate certain public lands as open, and certain other lands as closed for 

application for future oil shale and tar sands leasing. 

 If and when applications to lease are received and accepted, the BLM will conduct 

additional required analyses, including consideration of direct, indirect, and cumulative 

effects, reasonable alternatives, and possible mitigation measures, as well as assessment of 

the level of development that may be anticipated. On the basis of that analysis of future lease 

application(s), the BLM will establish general lease stipulations and best management practices 

(BMPs) and amend applicable land use plans, if necessary. After a lease is authorized, actual 

development will require additional analysis to address the site-specific conditions of the 

proposed development and to develop mitigating measures. 

1.2 SCOPE OF THE ANALYSIS 

 The NOI to prepare the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement and Possible 

Land Use Plan Amendments for Allocation of Oil Shale and Tar Sands Resources on Lands 

Administered by the Bureau of Land Management in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming was 

published in the Federal Register (72 FR 21003–21005) on April 14, 2011. The NOI contained 

information regarding the need for the project, opportunities for public involvement, 

supplementary information regarding the project, planning criteria that would underlie the PEIS, 

and invited the public to comment on the proposed PEIS. Planning criteria are the standards, 

rules, and other factors used in formulating judgments about data collection, analysis, and 

decisionmaking associated with preparation of the PEIS. These criteria establish parameters and 

help focus preparation of the PEIS. The following are the planning criteria that were included in 

the NOI for the project and that have been considered during the preparation of the PEIS: 

A. The PEIS and plan amendments will be completed in compliance with 

FLPMA and all applicable laws. 

B. The BLM will work collaboratively with the states of Colorado, Utah, and 

Wyoming; tribal governments; county and municipal governments; other 

federal agencies; and all other interested groups, agencies, and individuals. 

Public participation will be encouraged throughout the process. 

C. The proposed plan amendments analyzed in the PEIS would amend the 

appropriate individual land use plans specifically to address allocation of 

BLM-administered lands as open or closed to leasing and development of oil 

shale and tar sands resources. 
Final OSTS PEIS 1-8 

D. Preparation of the PEIS and plan amendments will involve coordination with 

Indian tribal governments and will provide strategies for the protection of 

recognized traditional uses. 

E. The BLM will coordinate with local, state, and federal agencies in the 

planning process and development of the PEIS to strive for consistency with 

their existing plans and policies, to the extent practicable. 

F. Any decisions made on the basis of the planning process and development of 

the PEIS will take into account valid existing rights. 

As stated in the NOI, this PEIS evaluates the potential impacts of designating lands as available 

or not available for commercial leasing of oil shale and tar sands resources that are located on 

public lands in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming (Figures 1.2-1 and 1.2-2). 

 Specifically, the study area for the oil shale resources includes the most geologically 

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

and Washakie Basins.3 For this planning initiative the BLM continues to employ the standard it 

developed pursuant to the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which is to focus on the most geologically 

prospective resources, as defined by grade and thickness of the deposits. For the purposes of this 

PEIS, the most geologically prospective oil shale resources in Colorado and Utah are those 

deposits that yield 25 gal of shale oil or more per ton of rock (gal/ton) and are 25 ft thick or 

greater. In Wyoming, where the oil shale resource quality is not as high as it is in Colorado and 

Utah, the most geologically prospective oil shale resources are those deposits that yield 

15 gal/ton or more of shale oil and are 15 ft thick or greater. Figure 1.2-1 shows the oil shale 

basins, which were mapped on the basis of the extent of the Green River Formation, and the 

most geologically prospective oil shale resources within those basins.4

 

3 The Piceance Basin is not referred to or described consistently in published literature. Some publications 

describe the Piceance Basin as an area encompassing more than 7,000 mi2 and consisting of a northern province 

and a southern province, which are roughly separated by the Colorado River and Interstate 70 (I-70). Other 

publications refer to the southern province as the Grand Mesa Basin. Oil shale is present in both provinces, with 

the richest oil shale deposits in the north, and smaller, isolated deposits in the south. Various authors have used 

the terms “Piceance Basin” and “Piceance Creek Basin” to refer to either the overall basin or the northern area. 

In this PEIS, the focus is on the northern province, where the richest and thickest reserves are located, and the 

study area is referred to as the “Piceance Basin.” 

4 Numerous sources of information were used to define the boundaries of the Green River Formation basins and 

the most geologically prospective oil shale resources. The basin boundaries were defined by digital data 

provided by the USGS taken from Green (1992), Green and Drouillard (1994), and Hintze et al. (2000). The 

most geologically prospective oil shale resources in the Piceance Basin were defined on the basis of digital data 

provided by the USGS taken from Pitman and Johnson (1978), Pitman (1979), and Pitman et al. (1989). In 

Wyoming, the most geologically prospective oil shale resources were defined on the basis of detailed analyses 

of available oil shale assay data (Wiig 2006a,b). In Utah, the most geologically prospective oil shale resources 

were defined by digital data provided by the BLM Utah State Office. (Utah Geological Service data from 2008 

[Vanden Berg 2008] were examined and were determined to be consistent with this definition; i.e., were 

sufficiently similar as to not require modifying the most geologically prospective area in Utah.). Review of the 

new USGS assessment data shows increases in the amount of in-place resources available in all three basins; 

however, the USGS acknowledges that “much of this previously unassessed resource is of low grade and is 

unlikely to be developed.” 
Final OSTS PEIS 1-9 

FIGURE 1.2-1 Most Geologically Prospective Oil Shale Resources within the Green River 

Formation Basins in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming 
Final OSTS PEIS 1-10 

FIGURE 1.2-2 Special Tar Sand Areas in Utah 
Final OSTS PEIS 1-11 

 For tar sands resources, the study area includes those locations designated as Special 

Tar Sand Areas (STSAs) in the geologic reports (minutes) prepared by the USGS in 1980 

(USGS 1980ak) and formalized by Congress in the Combined Hydrocarbon Leasing Act of 

1981 (P.L. 97-78).5 Eleven STSAs were identified across different sedimentary provinces in 

Utah (Figure 1.2-2): Argyle CanyonWillow Creek (hereafter referred to as Argyle Canyon), 

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

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

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

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

Canyon. 

 The oil shale and tar sands resources that fall within the defined study areas are located 

within the jurisdiction of 10 separate BLM field offices or administrative units. These include the 

Colorado River Valley (formerly the Glenwood Springs), Grand Junction, and White River Field 

Offices in Colorado; the Monticello, Price, Richfield, and Vernal Field Offices in Utah; and the 

Kemmerer, Rawlins, and Rock Springs Field Offices in Wyoming.6 The subsequent ROD will 

modify the decisions in the land use plans, as appropriate. 

 The scope of this PEIS includes public lands managed by the BLM where the federal 

government owns both the surface estate and subsurface mineral rights. In addition, 

BLM-managed lands where the federal government owns the subsurface mineral rights but the 

surface estate is owned by tribes, states, or private parties (i.e., split estate lands) are included in 

the scope of this analysis. Tribal lands where both the surface estate and subsurface mineral 

estate are owned by the tribe are not included in the scope of analysis of this PEIS. 

 The BLM has determined that certain lands within the oil shale and tar sands resource 

areas are excluded from commercial leasing on the basis of existing laws and regulations, 

Executive Orders, administrative land use plan designations as noted below, or withdrawals. As 

a result, commercial leasing is excluded from Naval Oil Shale Reserves (NOSR) Numbers 1 

and 3,7 all designated Wilderness Areas, Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs), other areas that 

are part of the National Landscape Conservation System (NLCS) managed by the BLM 

(e.g., National Monuments, National Conservation Areas [NCAs], Wild and Scenic Rivers 

[WSRs], and National Historic and Scenic Trails), and existing ACECs that are currently closed 

to mineral development. As discussed in Chapter 2, additional areas are closed and will not be 

available for the future opportunity to lease for oil shale and tar sands on the basis of local 

planning decisions. 

 

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

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

6 Although the P.R. Spring STSA extends into the Moab Field Office boundary, this area is administered by the 

Vernal Field Office under a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Moab Field Office. Under this 

agreement, the Vernal Field Office administers all resources and programs, including land use planning, for the 

entire P.R. Spring STSA. 

7 These Reserves were erroneously included in the maps and acreage totals identified as open for oil shale leasing 

in the 2008 PEIS and ROD. As explained in Section 2.3.3 of this PEIS, this error has been corrected. 
Final OSTS PEIS 1-12 

 Ten land use plans will be amended to designate lands as available or not available for 

commercial oil shale leasing, and four land use plans will be amended to designate lands as 

available or not available for commercial tar sands leasing. Three of the plans that are to be 

amended contain both oil shale and tar sands resources. 

 The oil shale and tar sands plan alternatives are described in Chapter 2 of the PEIS, 

including summary tables comparing the potential impact of the alternatives. For information 

purposes, the tables also include information on potential impacts that could accompany future 

commercial development of oil shale and tar sands resources. Chapter 3 describes the affected 

environment of the study area. The potential impacts of commercial oil shale and tar sands 

development are described in Chapters 4 and 5, respectively. Chapter 6 assesses the impacts of 

the different alternatives evaluated in this PEIS, provides a comparison of the alternatives, and 

provides an assessment of cumulative impacts. Chapter 7 contains a summary of the consultation 

and coordination associated with the PEIS. Chapter 8 contains the list of preparers of the PEIS, 

and Chapter 9 is the Glossary. Appendices A and B provide overviews of the oil shale and tar 

sands technologies that might be used over the next 20 years. Appendix C details the proposed 

land use plan amendments associated with the proposed alternatives. Appendix D summarizes 

the potentially applicable federal, state, and county regulatory requirements for oil shale and tar 

sands development. Appendices E and F contain relevant biological data for the three-state study 

area and the proposed conservation measures for the preferred alternative. Appendix G details 

the methodology used for the socioeconomics assessment. Appendix H describes the approach 

used for interviewing selected residents of the oil shale and tar sands project area in the 

preparation of the 2008 PEIS, Appendix I provides the instream flow water rights in the Piceance 

Basin, Colorado, and Appendix J is the Summary of Public Scoping Comments for this PEIS. 

Appendix K contains relevant policy documents for the management of greater sage-grouse, and 

Appendix L presents correspondence pertaining to government-to-government and NHPA 

Section 106 consultation. Cooperating agency letters are provided in Appendix M. 

 The scope of the analysis for this PEIS does not include review of the decisions by the 

Secretary to issue the RD&D leases described in Section 1.4.1. Those leases authorize activities 

on six 160-acre parcels located in Colorado and Utah (see Figure 2.3-2 of this PEIS) and also 

identify conditions under which commercial development could occur on 4,970 acres of 

preference right lease areas (PRLAs) included in the leases. A total of 30,720 acres may be 

developed under the terms of these leases. A call for nominations for a second round of RD&D 

leases was published in the Federal Register on November 3, 2009. Three nominations were 

received (two in Colorado, one in Utah); the two Colorado proposed parcels completed NEPA 

analysis in September 2012 and were approved in October 2012, effective November 1, 2012. 

The applicant in Utah has not indicated a willingness to move forward in the lease approval 

process. Under the 2009 solicitation, certain provisions in the terms of the new RD&D leases 

have changed. The new leases contain terms that authorize RD&D activity on 160-acre parcels 

and also identify conditions under which commercial development could occur on an additional 

480 acres of PRLAs included in each of the leases. A total of 1,280 acres may be developed 

under the terms of the two newly authorized leases. An additional 640 acres may be developed if 

the remaining proposal in Utah is granted. RD&D leases issued prior to the ROD for this 

planning initiative would be prior existing rights and are not the subject of decisions within this 
Final OSTS PEIS 1-13 

PEIS, with the exception that all alternatives address the subsequent availability of the lands 

contained in the leases should the initial leaseholder relinquish the existing leases. 

 In accordance with Section 369(n) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, and as carried 

forward from the 2008 ROD, the BLM will consider and give priority to the use of land 

exchanges, where appropriate and feasible, to consolidate land ownership and mineral interests 

within the oil shale basins and STSAs. However, because the possible locations for such future 

exchanges are unknown at this time, the scope of this PEIS does not include evaluations of 

potential impacts of such exchanges, and leasing for commercial development on these lands 

would be subject to additional NEPA review. 

1.2.1 Public Involvement 

 An NOI to prepare a PEIS and possible land use plan amendments for allocation of oil 

shale and tar sands resources on lands administered by the BLM in Colorado, Utah, and 

Wyoming was published in the Federal Register on April 14, 2011 (BLM 2011). The NOI 

articulated a preliminary purpose and need for the proposed action of amending land use plans, 

identified planning criteria, initiated the public scoping process, and invited interested members 

of the public to provide comments on the scope and objectives of the PEIS, including 

identification of issues and alternatives that should be considered in the PEIS analyses. 

 During the scoping period, the BLM conducted public meetings in April and May of 

2011, in Salt Lake City, Vernal, and Price, Utah; Rock Springs and Cheyenne, Wyoming; and 

Rifle and Denver, Colorado. Approximately 28,800 people participated in the scoping process by 

attending public meetings and/or submitting comments. The BLM published a scoping report in 

October 2011, summarizing and categorizing issues, concerns, and comments, and considered 

them in developing the alternatives in this 2012 PEIS. A summary of scoping comments is 

provided in Section J.3 of Appendix J of this document. 

 The BLM published a Notice of Availability for the Draft Programmatic Environmental 

Impact Statement and Possible Land Use Plan Amendments for Allocation of Oil Shale and Tar 

Sands Resources on Lands Administered by the Bureau of Land Management in Colorado, Utah, 

and Wyoming (BLM 2012) on February 3, 2012, and announced a 90-day public comment period 

that closed on May 4, 2012. Open house meetings were held during March 2012 to provide 

additional information on the Draft PEIS. Approximately 160,000 comment letters were 

received, about 600 of them contained substantive comments, and roughly 160,000 appeared to 

be similar or identical to one another (i.e., form letters). Comments on the Draft PEIS received 

from the public and cooperating agencies were considered and incorporated, as appropriate, into 

the proposed plan amendments. Issues identified in the comments include air quality, climate 

change, water quality and quantity, socioeconomic concerns, wildlife concerns, and cultural 

resources concerns, as well as concerns related to the agency’s compliance with FLPMA, NEPA, 

and the Energy Policy Act of 2005. These issues are summarized and the resolution of them 

described in the Comment Response Document in Volume 5 of this Final PEIS. 

 Comments on the Draft PEIS received from the public, cooperating agencies, other 

federal agencies, as well as internal BLM review were considered and information incorporated 
Final OSTS PEIS 1-14 

as appropriate into this Proposed RMP Amendments/Final PEIS. As a result of public comments 

and upon further review, corrections/revisions were made to the alternatives and changes were 

made from what was presented as the Preferred Alternative in the Draft PEIS. These changes 

have resulted in a Proposed Plan Amendment that references new acreage figures. 

1.2.2 Environmental Impact Analysis in This PEIS 

 The analysis of environmental effects in this PEIS is made up of two main components. 

The first is an analysis of generic, hypothetical, commercial facilities for each of the major types 

of oil shale and tar sands technologies resulting in the development of impacting factors for 

affected environmental resources. In cases in which information on impacting factors was not 

available for commercial oil shale or tar sands technologies, such factors were developed from 

analogous experience in the oil and gas industry. These factors and the resulting environmental 

effects of generic commercial-scale facilities are described in Chapter 4 for oil shale 

technologies and in Chapter 5 for tar sands technologies. The second main component of the 

environmental impacts analysis draws on the expected environmental effects of oil shale RD&D 

projects on the six first-round 160-acre RD&D leases and the two 160-acre second-round leases 

mentioned above as analyzed in the Environmental Assessments (EAs) prepared for those 

projects. RD&D project summaries are provided in Appendix A. These components, along with 

information about the affected environment, presented in Chapter 3, form the basis of the 

discussion in Chapter 6 of possible environmental consequences of future leasing and 

development of these resources that might take place within the areas proposed for allocation 

under each alternative. 

 A reasonably foreseeable development scenario (RFDS) is an analytical tool, often used 

in the planning process that can inform analyses prepared pursuant to NEPA. An RFDS is a 

reasonable projection of the most likely anticipated oil shale and tar sands activity supported by 

a clear level of assumptions. An RFDS was not developed for this planning initiative, however, 

because information regarding possible development of these resources remains highly 

speculative. Analysis of the effects of development at the programmatic level will be qualitative 

to stay within the limited scope of the planning decisions to be made, as well as to reflect the 

limited and/or highly speculative nature of the information available. 

 If and when applications to lease oil shale and tar sands resources for commercial 

development are received and accepted by the BLM and when information is less speculative, it 

will be possible to develop an RFDS. That RFDS will be the critical component for performing 

a thorough effects analysis of oil shale and tar sands activities that could occur as a result of 

leasing. An RFDS for an area of proposed oil shale and tar sands leasing provides information 

for evaluating the type and extent of potential effects from oil shale and tar sands development 

that could occur. Effects analysis for leasing is broad and generalized because it is necessarily 

based on a hypothetical scenario of exploration and development. 

 At the project level, the plan of development provides the specific technical information 

necessary for the analysis of environmental consequences of these operations, including analysis 

of cumulative effects of the proposed action. An exploration or development permit is definitive 
Final OSTS PEIS 1-15 

for activities that will involve ground disturbance, unlike the speculative RFDS used to analyze 

effects related to a leasing decision. Consequently, the nature and extent of effects from the 

proposed exploration or development action can be determined with a higher degree of accuracy 

and confidence than that associated with a planning- or leasing-level RFDS. 

1.3 COOPERATING AGENCIES 

 The scope of the Proposed Land Use Plan Amendments for Allocation of Oil Shale and 

Tar Sands Resources on Lands Administered by the Bureau of Land Management in Colorado, 

Utah, and Wyoming and Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement is of interest to 

numerous federal, tribal, state, and local governments. The BLM invited 55 agencies to 

participate in the preparation of the PEIS as cooperating agencies. Fourteen agencies expressed 

an interest in participating as cooperating agencies, and MOUs between these agencies and the 

BLM were established. The following agencies are participating as cooperating agencies in the 

preparation of this PEIS: 

• National Park Service (NPS); 

• USFWS; 

• State of Colorado Department of Natural Resources (Colorado DNR) and 

Department of Public Health and the Environment (CDPHE); 

• State of Utah; 

• State of Wyoming; 

• Garfield County, Colorado; 

• City of Rifle, Colorado; 

• Carbon County, Utah; 

• Duchesne County, Utah; 

• Grand County, Utah; 

• Uintah County, Utah; 

• Lincoln County, Wyoming; 

• Sweetwater County, Wyoming; and 

• Coalition of Local Governments. 

The roles and responsibilities of these cooperating agencies, and the extent of interactions 

between them and the BLM, are discussed in Chapter 7. 
Final OSTS PEIS 1-16 

1.4 RELATIONSHIP OF THE PROPOSED ACTION TO OTHER BLM AND 

COOPERATING AGENCY PROGRAMS, POLICIES, AND PLANS 

1.4.1 BLM’s Oil Shale Research, Development, and Demonstration Program 

 On June 9, 2005, pursuant to its authority under Section 21 of the Mineral Leasing Act 

(MLA) (30 USC 241), the BLM initiated an oil shale RD&D program under which small tracts 

of land could be leased in support of activities to demonstrate the technical and economic 

feasibility of oil shale extractive technologies (70 FR 33753–33759). The BLM solicited the 

nomination of parcels, not to exceed 160 acres, to be used for oil shale RD&D activities. 

Applicants also were allowed to identify an additional contiguous 4,960 acres of land to be 

reserved as a PRLA for future commercial development, to be awarded subject to the following 

terms: 

(a) Upon documenting to the satisfaction of the authorized officer that it has 

produced commercial quantities of shale oil from the lease, the Lessee has the 

exclusive right to convert the research and development lease acreage to a 

commercial lease and acquire any or all portions of the remaining preference 

lease area up to a total of 5,120 contiguous acres upon: 

 (1) Payment of a bonus based on the Fair Market Value of the lease, to be 

determined by the Lessor utilizing criteria to be developed through the 

rulemaking described in subsection (b) or other process for obtaining 

public input; 

 (2) Documentation of the Lessee’s consultation with state and local officials 

to develop a plan for mitigating the socioeconomic impacts of commercial 

development on communities and infrastructure; 

 (3) Provision of adequate bond to cover all costs associated with reclamation 

and abandonment of the expanded lease area; and 

 (4) BLM’s determination, following analysis pursuant to NEPA, that 

commercial-scale operations can be conducted, subject to mitigation 

measures to be specified in stipulations or regulations, without 

unacceptable environmental consequences. 

(b) Such commercial lease shall contain terms consistent with regulations to be 

developed by the Secretary pursuant to section 21 of the Act and stipulations 

developed through appropriate NEPA analysis. 

(c) Such commercial lease may be issued for a term of 20 years and so long 

thereafter as shale oil is produced from the Leased Lands in commercial 

quantities. Such commercial lease shall be subject to payment of rents and 

royalties to the Lessor at the established rates at the time of lease conversion, 
Final OSTS PEIS 1-17 

or at such reduced rate that the Lessee demonstrates is necessary to permit the 

economic development of the oil shale resource. The royalty shall be subject 

to the readjustment of lease terms at the end of the 20th lease year and each 

20-year period thereafter. 

 The 160-acre RD&D leases were issued for 10-year terms with an option to extend them 

up to another 5 years. Prior to beginning RD&D activities, the lessees also must obtain permits 

from the BLM and other governmental agencies (e.g., state-issued air quality permits). These 

RD&D leases and the conversion right to commercial operations on preference acreage represent 

a prior existing right that may be exercised upon compliance with the terms of the lease. 

 The BLM received and reviewed a total of 20 nomination packages. Ultimately, 

six projects were selected for further consideration, including preparation of EAs under NEPA. 

The projects that were selected included five projects in the Piceance Basin, Colorado (one each 

submitted by Chevron Shale Oil Company and EGL Resources, Inc. [EGL],8 and three submitted 

by Shell Frontier Oil & Gas), and one project in the Uinta Basin, Utah (submitted by Oil Shale 

Exploration Company [OSEC]).9 The RD&D leases for the five Colorado projects were issued 

January 1, 2007; the lease for the Utah project was issued in June 2007. The RD&D leases are 

part of the baseline activities under all alternatives considered in the PEIS. More information 

about these RD&D projects is provided in Section 2.3 and Appendix A. 

 A second round of solicitations of interest in RD&D leases was issued by the BLM on 

November 3, 2009 (74 FR 56867). Any new RD&D lease would have to be consistent with the 

applicable BLM land use plans. Three nomination packages were submitted; all three were 

selected for further consideration, including preparation of EAs under NEPA. The projects that 

were selected include two projects in the Piceance Basin, Colorado (one from Exxon-Mobil 

Exploration Company and one from Natural Soda Holdings, Inc.) and one project in the Uintah 

Basin, Utah, submitted by Aurasource. Aurasource, the company in Utah, has not indicated a 

willingness to move forward in the lease approval process. The impacts of new RD&D leasing 

are anticipated to be qualitatively similar to those of commercial oil shale leasing as analyzed in 

this PEIS. While the two Colorado leases have not yet been approved or issued, they are 

presented in this Final PEIS as approved, which shows what the allocation would look like, 

should these RD&D leases be issued. 

 The RD&D impacts, however, are anticipated to be smaller in scale than those of 

commercial projects, at least until any RD&D lease might be converted to a commercial oil shale 

lease and expanded to include preference right acreage. Therefore, the analysis in this PEIS for 

commercial oil shale projects also provides sufficient analysis of RD&D projects for purposes of 

amending land use plans. New RD&D leases would be issued, if at all, only after site-specific 

analysis under NEPA. Conversion to commercial leases would also require an individualized 

NEPA document. 

 

8 Since the issuance of its RD&D lease, EGL Resources, Inc., has become American Shale Oil, LLC. 

9 Since the issuance of its RD&D lease, OSEC has become Enefit American Oil. 
Final OSTS PEIS 1-18 

1.4.2 Combined Hydrocarbon Leasing Program and Leasing in STSAs Issued 

under the Revised MLA 

 The Combined Hydrocarbon Leasing Act of 1981 (P.L. 97-78) amended the MLA to 

authorize the Secretary to issue combined hydrocarbon leases (CHLs) in areas containing 

substantial deposits of tar sands, which were to be designated as STSAs. This Act further 

specified that a CHL was the only type of lease that could be offered in these STSAs, provided 

for the conversion of existing oil and gas leases or tar sands claims in these areas to CHLs, 

and established the maximum lease size as 5,120 acres. The Combined Hydrocarbon Leasing 

Act defined oil as all nongaseous hydrocarbons except coal, oil shale, gilsonite, and other 

vein-type solid hydrocarbons. Eleven STSAs were designated in 1980 and 1981. The BLM 

published regulations implementing the leasing provisions of this Act in February 1983 at 

43 CFR Part 3140. Subsequently, the BLM prepared the Utah Combined Hydrocarbon Leasing 

EIS (BLM 1984). Tar sands resources located outside of these STSAs were not subject to the 

requirements of 43 CFR Part 3140 and are available for development under oil and gas leases. 

 Under the authority of the Combined Hydrocarbon Leasing Act, CHLs were issued in the 

mid-1980s and mid-1990s within the Pariette and P.R. Spring STSAs in the Vernal Field Office; 

17 of these leases remain in existence (May 2012). Many are being held by oil and gas 

production. Also in the mid-1980s, a number of operators holding oil and gas leases within the 

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

these leases has not been completed; thus a number of pending conversion applications remain 

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

STSAs. The BLM is currently engaged in adjudication of these applications. 

 On May 18, 2006, pursuant to Section 350 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which 

amended the MLA to allow separate oil and gas leases and tar sands leases in designated 

STSAs, the BLM issued a final rule on leasing in STSAs (71 FR 28779, codified at 

43 CFR Subpart 3141). The final rule authorizes the BLM to issue separate leases for exploration 

for and extraction of tar sands, separate leases for exploration for and development of oil and 

gas, and separate leases for CHLs within designated STSAs. Under the rule, all three types of 

leases would have primary terms of 10 years; CHLs and oil and gas leases would remain in 

effect as long thereafter as oil or gas is produced in commercial quantities; tar sands leases 

would remain in effect after the 10-year term as long as tar sands are produced in commercial 

quantities. The final rule increases the maximum acreage of CHLs or tar sands leases in an 

STSA from 5,120 to 5,760 acres, establishes the minimum acceptable bid for tar sands leases at 

$2.00 per acre, and requires that tar sands leases be issued by competitive processes only. In 

addition, under the final rule, leasing in STSAs within NPS units is allowed only where mineral 

leasing is permitted by law and where the lands are open to mineral resource disposition in 

accordance with any applicable Minerals Management Plan. The NPS Regional Director also 

must find that leasing within an NPS unit would not result in any significant adverse impacts on 

the NPS unit or any contiguous unit. 

 Decisions in the ROD resulting from this PEIS regarding the availability of lands within 

the STSAs for future commercial leasing will not affect or be affected by the requirements 

established for tar sands leasing in the final rule. 
Final OSTS PEIS 1-19 

1.4.3 Existing BLM Land Use Plans, Ongoing Planning Activities, and Resource 

Management Plan Revisions 

 The BLM develops land use plans to guide activities, establish management goals and 

approaches, establish land use allocations within a planning area, and provide management 

prescriptions for public lands. Current generation land use plans are called Resource 

Management Plans (RMPs); in the past, such plans were called Management Framework Plans 

(MFPs), and some MFPs are still in use. Decisions in existing BLM land use plans were 

incorporated into the analyses conducted in preparation of this PEIS and are discussed in 

Section 3.1.1. Of the existing land use plans within the study area, the BLM is currently engaged 

in planning efforts to revise, amend, or prepare new versions of four of the plans. The existing 

plans within the PEIS study area include the following: 

• Colorado 

 Glenwood Springs RMP (BLM 1988, as amended by the 2006 Roan 

Plateau Plan Amendment [BLM 2006a, 2007, 2008d])10,11

 Grand Junction RMP (BLM 1987) 

 White River RMP (BLM 1997a, as amended by the 2006 Roan Plateau 

Plan Amendment [BLM 2006a, 2007, 2008d]) 

• Utah 

 Monticello RMP (BLM 2008e) 

 Price RMP (BLM 2008f) 

 Richfield RMP (BLM 2008g) 

 Vernal RMP (BLM 2008h) 

 Grand Staircase–Escalante National Monument (GSENM) Management 

Plan (BLM 1999) 

• Wyoming 

 Green River RMP (BLM 1997b, as amended by the Jack Morrow Hills 

Coordinated Activity Plan [BLM 2006b]) 

 Kemmerer RMP (BLM 2010) 

 Rawlins RMP (BLM 2008i) 

 With the exception of the RMP for the GSENM (BLM 1999), these existing BLM land 

use plans will be amended by decisions contained in the ROD for the PEIS. The proposed land 

use plan amendments are discussed in Chapter 2 and are presented in Appendix C. 

 When the amendments/revisions/replacements of four RMPs currently undergoing 

planning (Grand Junction, Colorado River Valley, Green River, and White River Field Office) 

were initiated, there was no reasonably foreseeable development projected for tar sands or oil 

 

10 The Glenwood Springs Field Office moved to Silt, Colorado, and is now called the Colorado River Valley Field 

Office, although the current RMP is still titled the Glenwood Springs RMP. When the plan revision is approved, 

it will be called the Colorado River Valley RMP. 

11 The Glenwood Springs RMP and the White River RMP are currently undergoing revision. 
Final OSTS PEIS 1-20 

shale over the life of these plans, and for that reason, identification of areas available for 

potential oil shale or tar sands leasing was not considered as part of those planning processes. 

The mineral reports prepared to accompany the three RMPs did identify oil shale resources, but 

did not project any leasing or development because of prevailing and anticipated economic 

factors. The fourth RMP effort, the amendment of the White River RMP, is being conducted 

specifically to consider the amendment of that RMP to allow additional oil and gas development 

activity. It was recognized at the time that this PEIS would consider the issue of oil shale 

management for the White River RMP area. 

 On December 13, 2005, the BLM published a NOI in the Federal Register initiating a 

PEIS to support a commercial oil shale and tar sands leasing program on federal lands in these 

three states. Early in the development of the draft, the scope of that PEIS was revised to focus 

only on decisionmaking regarding allocation of lands as open or closed, because the BLM 

determined that the analysis of environmental consequences of commercial oil shale and tar 

sands development would not be sufficiently detailed to support lease issuance. The BLM made 

this determination on the basis that the development technologies for in situ production of oil 

shale were just emerging and that, therefore, there was a lack of information regarding resource 

use and associated impacts. 

 In the time since the 2008 OSTS PEIS and ROD, the BLM has not received any new 

information from the existing RD&D lessees that could provide sufficiently detailed analysis of 

the environmental consequences of commercial oil shale development to support lease issuance. 

The situation is similar with respect to the lack of information regarding the technological and 

environmental requirements of commercial tar sands development. Consequently, as with the 

2008 OSTS PEIS and ROD, this PEIS is similar in scope, supporting only resource allocation 

decisionmaking that identifies the BLM-managed lands for which applications to lease oil shale 

and tar sands resources would or would not be accepted in the future. That is, although 

applications would be accepted for areas that may be identified as available for commercial 

leasing, the BLM will need to comply with all applicable laws, regulations, and policies, 

including but not limited to the requirements of NEPA, NHPA, and ESA before any leasing of 

the area would be considered (see text box describing the steps in the development 

decisionmaking process). 

 The ROD for the Final OSTS PEIS will amend the land use plans existing at the time of 

its adoption, identifying those areas designated as open or closed for application for future oil 

shale and tar sands leasing. 

1.4.4 Leasing 

 As part of the site‐specific analysis to be carried out prior to issuance of any oil shale or 

tar sands leases, the environmental consequences to specific resource values and uses within the 

areas and any alternative actions would be analyzed. At that time, at the site-specific level, the 

competing resource values will be analyzed and weighed as required by FLPMA and NEPA and 

other applicable laws, and a decision will be made regarding management of the specific parcel 

of land. If, pursuant to the lease evaluation and land use planning process, the BLM determines 
Final OSTS PEIS 1-21 

that leasing and subsequent development of the oil shale or tar sands resources would cause 

significant impacts, the BLM can require the applicant to mitigate the impact so that it is no 

longer significant or move the proposed lease location. If neither of these options resolves the 

anticipated conflicts, the BLM can decide either that the importance of development of the oil 

shale and tar sands resources outweighs protection of the competing resource value and approve 

the application, or that the resource value outweighs the advantages of development and deny the 

application. 

 This preleasing NEPA and other coordinated analyses would include the same 

opportunities for public involvement and comment that are part of this PEIS process and every 

other planning and NEPA process the BLM undertakes. The decisions associated with the PEIS 

will be incorporated into the ongoing RMPs as they are finalized or will amend the existing 

RMPs, depending on the order in which the documents are completed with respect to the 

completion of the PEIS. 

 Although the BLM handbooks provide for stipulations for oil and gas leases to be made 

part of the land use plans, that guidance is not applicable to the present analysis to amend land 

use plans for development of oil shale or tar sands. Oil and gas is a mature industry in which 

there is long experience with leasing stipulations to conserve and to protect affected resources. 

The present experimental stage of the oil shale and tar sands industries weighs against emplacing 

lease stipulations in the RMPs at this time. Instead, the BLM will develop appropriate lease 

stipulations and either (1) include them in appropriate RMPs as part of future amendments or 

(2) include them in commercial lease sale announcements. That will allow the BLM to refine 

lease stipulations over time based on the latest information regarding oil shale or tar sands 

technologies and their impacts, without unnecessary rounds of amendments to the land use plans. 

This PEIS does discuss various mitigation requirements, methods, and objectives that will inform 

both (1) the lease stipulations developed for particular lease sales or for future amendments to 

RMPs and (2) the conditions of approval for plans of development.

1.4.5 Cooperating Agency Plans and Programs 

 As discussed in Section 1.3, this PEIS has been prepared in cooperation with 14 federal, 

state, and local governmental organizations. Management plans and programs established by 

these cooperating agencies have been considered in the preparation of this PEIS on the basis of 

information provided by the agencies. An allocation decision identifying lands as available for 

application to lease permits the BLM to consider only applications to lease and does not grant 

any property right. It does not authorize any ground-disturbing activities, nor is it an irreversible 

or irretrievable commitment of resources under NEPA. The BLM will cooperate with state, local, 

and tribal governments to promote consistency with their land use plans, where possible. For 

example, the City of Rifle has indicated to the BLM, on a preliminary basis, that it believes the 

BLM’s allocation decisions to be in conflict with its plan regarding economic development. 

Further details regarding the comments of other cooperating agencies, and the BLM’s response 

to these comments may be found in Appendix M, as well as in the Comment Response 

Document in Volume 5 of this PEIS. 

 
Final OSTS PEIS 1-22 

1.4.6 Other BLM Programmatic Energy-Related Land Use Planning Initiatives 

1.4.6.1 BLM and U.S. Forest Service (USFS) Energy Corridor Designation (2008) 

 In accordance with Section 368 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the BLM and USFS, 

working with the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and U.S. Department of Defense (DoD), 

prepared a PEIS evaluating issues associated with the designation of energy corridors on federal 

lands in 11 Western states, including Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. On the basis of this Final 

West-wide Energy Corridors PEIS (DOE and DOI 2008), the BLM and USFS amended their 

respective land use plans to designate a series of energy corridors across the western states. 

These potential amendments do overlap the planning areas included within the OSTS PEIS area. 

In addition, the designation of energy corridors may affect energy development throughout the 

western United States, including commercial oil shale and tar sands development, because the 

location of energy corridors may facilitate development by removing administrative and 

planning barriers for potential pipelines, electric transmission lines, and associated infrastructure. 

The Final West-wide Energy Corridors PEIS is available at http://corridoreis.anl.gov. 

1.4.6.2 BLM and USFS Programmatic EIS for Geothermal Leasing (2008) 

 In accordance with the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), the BLM and USFS 

proposed a program to facilitate geothermal leasing on lands administered by the BLM and the 

USFS (National Forest System [NFS] lands) that have geothermal potential in 12 western states, 

including Alaska, some of which overlap the OSTS PEIS study area. Under the proposal, the 

BLM and USFS would do the following: (1) identify public and NFS lands with geothermal 

potential as being legally open or closed to leasing; (2) issue or deny geothermal lease 

applications pending as of January 1, 2005; (3) identify public lands that are administratively 

closed or open, and under what conditions; (4) develop a comprehensive list of stipulations, 

BMPs, and procedures to serve as consistent guidance for future geothermal leasing and 

development on public and NFS lands; and (5) amend BLM land use plans to adopt the resource 

allocations, stipulations, BMPs, and procedures. The program is described and analyzed in the 

Final PEIS for Geothermal Leasing in the Western United States published in October 2008 

(BLM 2008j). A ROD for the program was issued in December 2008 (BLM 2008k). 

1.4.6.3 BLM and DOE Programmatic EIS for Solar Energy Development 

(initiated 2009) 

 On March 11, 2009, the Secretary of the Interior issued Secretarial Order 3285, which 

announced a policy goal of identifying and prioritizing specific locations best suited for 

large-scale (i.e., utility-scale) production of solar energy on public lands (Secretary of the 

Interior 2010). The Secretarial Order directs the DOI to work with individual states, tribes, local 

governments, and other interested stakeholders to identify appropriate areas for generation and 

necessary transmission of solar energy, to develop BMPs for renewable energy and transmission 

projects on public lands to ensure the most environmentally responsible development and 
Final OSTS PEIS 1-23 

delivery, and to establish clear policy direction for authorizing the development of solar energy 

on public lands. The proposed Solar Energy Development Program has been designed to 

meet these requirements and to serve as an analytical tool to assist the BLM in considering 

replacement of its current solar energy development policy with a comprehensive Solar Energy 

Development Program that would allow the permitting of future solar energy projects to proceed 

in a more standardized and efficient manner. The program is described and analyzed in the Draft 

Solar PEIS published in December 2010 (BLM and DOE 2010), the Supplement to the Draft 

published in October 2011 (BLM and DOE 2011), and the Final PEIS published in July 2012 

(BLM and DOE 2012). Some of the public lands within the Solar Energy Development Program 

planning area overlap with the OSTS PEIS study area. 

1.4.6.4 DOE Uranium Leasing Programmatic EIS (initiated 2011) 

 The DOE Office of Legacy Management (LM) is preparing a PEIS for the DOE Uranium 

Leasing Program (ULP). DOE LM currently manages this ULP and administers 31 lease tracts in 

the Uravan Mineral Belt in southwestern Colorado. Twenty-nine of these lease tracts are actively 

held under lease. The lease tracks lie in San Miguel, Montrose, and Mesa Counties in western 

Colorado and do not directly overlap the OSTS PEIS study area, although the area of potential 

cumulative effects for certain resources examined in relation to the ULP tracts may eventually be 

determined to extend to the OSTS PEIS study area. 

1.5 REFERENCES 

Note to Reader: This list of references identifies Web pages and associated URLs where 

reference data were obtained. It is likely that at the time of publication of this PEIS, some of 

these Web pages may no longer be available or their URL addresses may have changed. 

BLM (Bureau of Land Management), 1984, Utah Combined Hydrocarbon Leasing Regional 

Final EIS, Volume I: Regional Analyses, Utah State Office, Salt Lake City, Utah, June. 

BLM, 1987, Grand Junction Resource Area Resource Management Plan and Record of 

Decision, Grand Junction District, Colo., Jan. 

BLM, 1988, Record of Decision and Resource Management Plan, Glenwood Springs Resource 

Area, Grand Junction District, Colo., June. 

BLM, 1997a, White River Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan, White 

River Resource Area, Craig District, Meeker, Colo., July. 

BLM, 1997b, Record of Decision and Green River Resource Management Plan, Green River 

Resource Area, Rock Springs District Office, Wyo., Oct. 

BLM, 1999, Grand StaircaseEscalante National Monument Approved Management Plan 

Record of Decision, Grand StaircaseEscalante National Monument, Cedar City, Utah, Nov. 
Final OSTS PEIS 1-24 

BLM, 2005a, Land Use Planning Handbook, H-1601-1, U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau 

of Land Management, Washington, D.C., March. 

BLM, 2006a, Roan Plateau Planning Area, Including Former Naval Oil Shale Reserves 

Numbers 1 & 3, Resource Management Plan Amendment & Environmental Impact Statement, 

Final, Colorado State Office, Aug. Available at http://www.blm.gov/rmp/co/roanplateau/ 

final_eis_document.htm. 

BLM, 2006b, Record of Decision and Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan/Proposed 

Green River Resource Management Plan Amendment, Rock Springs Field Office, Wyo., July. 

BLM, 2007, Record of Decision for the Approval of Portions of the Roan Plateau Management 

Plan Amendment and Environmental Impact Statement, Glenwood Springs Field Office, Colo., 

June. 

BLM, 2008a, Proposed Oil Shale and Tar Sands Resource Management Plan Amendments to 

Address Land Use Allocation in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming and Final Programmatic 

Environmental Impact Statement, FES 08-32, Sept. Available at http://ostseis.anl.gov/. 

BLM, 2008b, Record of Decision for the Oil Shale and Tar Sands Resources Resource 

Management Plan Amendments, Nov. 17. 

BLM, 2008c, National Environmental Policy Act Handbook, BLM Handbook H-1790-1, 

Washington, D.C., Jan. 

BLM, 2008d, Record of Decision for the Resource Management Plan Amendment for Portions of 

the Roan Plateau Planning Area Designated as Areas of Critical Environmental Concern Public 

Lands in Garfield County, CO, March. 

BLM, 2008e, Proposed Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement, 

Monticello Field Office, Utah, Aug. 

BLM, 2008f, Proposed Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

for the Price Field Office, Price Field Office, Utah, Aug. 

BLM, 2008g, Richfield Field Office Proposed Resource Management Plan & Final 

Environmental Impact Statement, Richfield Field Office, Utah, Aug. 

BLM, 2008h, Proposed Resource Management Plan Revision and Final Environmental Impact 

Statement for the Vernal Field Office Planning Area, Vernal Field Office, Utah, Aug. 

BLM, 2008i, Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan, Rawlins District 

Office, Great Divide Resource Area, Wyo. 

BLM 2008j, Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Geothermal Leasing in 

the Western United States, FES-08-44, Oct. 
Final OSTS PEIS 1-25 

BLM, 2008k, Record of Decision and Resource Management Plan Amendments for Geothermal 

Leasing in the Western United States, Dec. 

BLM, 2010, Record of Decision for the Kemmerer Resource Management Plan and Rangeland 

Program Summary Document, Kemmerer Resource Area, Rock Springs District, Wyo. 

BLM 2012, Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement and Possible Land Use Plan 

Amendments for Allocation of Oil Shale and Tar Sands Resources on Lands Administered by the 

Bureau of Land Management in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming, DES 12-01, Jan. Available at 

http://ostseis.anl.gov/index.cfm. 

BLM and DOE (BLM and U.S. Department of Energy), 2010, Draft Programmatic 

Environmental Impact Statement for Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States,

DES 10-59, DOE/EIS-0403, Dec. 

BLM and DOE, 2011, Supplement to the Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement 

for Solar Energy in Six Southwestern States, DES 11-49, DOE/EIS-0403D-S, Oct. 

BLM and DOE, 2012, Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Solar Energy in 

Six Southwestern States, FES 12-24, DOE/EIS-0403, July. 

DOE and DOI (U.S. Department of Energy and U.S. Department of the Interior), 2008, WestWide Energy Corridor Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Designation of Energy 

Corridors on Federal Land in the 11 Western States, DOE/EIS-0386, Nov. Available at 

http://corridoreis.anl.gov/documents/index.cfm. 

Green, G.N., 1992, The Digital Geologic Map of Colorado in ARC/INFO Format, 

scale 1:500,000, Open-File Report 92-0507, U.S. Geological Survey. 

Green, G.N., and P.H. Drouillard, 1994, The Digital Geologic Map of Wyoming in ARC/INFO 

Format, scale 1:500,000, Open-File Report 94-0425, U.S. Geological Survey. 

Hintze, L.F., et al., 2000, Digital Geologic Map of Utah, scale 1:500,000, Map 179DM compact 

disc, Utah Geological Survey. 

May, J., 2012, personal communication from May (Argonne National Laboratory, Lakewood, 

Colo.) to R. Bankert (Minerals Support Supervisor, Bureau of Land Management, Utah State 

Office, Salt Lake City, Utah), June 28. 

Pitman, J.K., 1979, Isopach, Structure Contour, and Resource Maps of the R-6 Oil Shale Zone, 

Green River Formation, Piceance Creek Basin, Colorado, Miscellaneous Field Investigations 

Map MF-1069, U.S. Geological Survey. 

Pitman, J.K., and R.C. Johnson, 1978, Isopach, Structure Contour, and Resource Maps of the 

Mahogany Oil-Shale Zone, Green River Formation, Piceance Creek Basin, Colorado, 

Miscellaneous Field Investigations Map MF-958, U.S. Geological Survey. 
Final OSTS PEIS 1-26 

Pitman, J.K., et al., 1989, Thickness, Oil-Yield, and Kriged Resource Estimates for the Eocene 

Green River Formation, Piceance Creek Basin, Colorado, Oil and Gas Chart OC-132, 

U.S. Geological Survey. 

Secretary of the Interior, 2010, Renewable Energy Development by the Department of the 

Interior, Amendment No. 1 to Secretarial Order 3285, Feb. 22. Available at http://elips.doi.gov/ 

2 app_so/act_getfiles.cfm?order_number=3285A1. 

USGS (U.S. Geological Survey), 1980a, Argyle CanyonWillow Creek, Utah Tar Sand Leasing 

Minutes No. 9, Minutes of the Mineral Land Evaluation Committee, Nov. 10. 

USGS, 1980b, Asphalt RidgeWhiterocks and Vicinity, Utah Tar Sand Leasing Minutes No. 3, 

Minutes of the Mineral Land Evaluation Committee, Sept. 23. 

USGS, 1980c, Circle Cliffs East and West Flanks, Utah Tar Sand Leasing Minutes No. 5,

Minutes of the Mineral Land Evaluation Committee, Sept. 23. 

USGS, 1980d, Hill Creek, Utah Tar Sand Leasing Minutes No. 6, Minutes of the Mineral Land 

Evaluation Committee, Nov. 10. 

USGS, 1980e, Pariette, Utah Tar Sand Leasing Minutes, Minutes of the Mineral Land 

Evaluation Committee, Nov. 10. 

USGS, 1980f, P.R. Spring, Utah Tar Sand Leasing Minutes, Minutes of the Mineral Land 

Evaluation Committee, Sept. 23. 

USGS, 1980g, Raven RidgeRim Rock and Vicinity, Utah Tar Sand Leasing Minutes No. 8, 

Minutes of the Mineral Land Evaluation Committee, Nov. 10. 

USGS, 1980h, San Rafael Swell, Utah Tar Sand Leasing Minutes No. 7, Minutes of the Mineral 

Land Evaluation Committee, Nov. 10. 

USGS, 1980i, Sunnyside and Vicinity, Utah Tar Sand Leasing Minutes No. 4, Minutes of the 

Mineral Land Evaluation Committee, Sept. 23. 

USGS, 1980j, Tar Sand Triangle, Utah Tar Sand Leasing Minutes No. 2, Minutes of the Mineral 

Land Evaluation Committee, Sept. 23. 

USGS, 1980k, White Canyon, Utah Tar Sand Leasing Minutes No. 11, Minutes of the Mineral 

Land Evaluation Committee, Nov. 10. 

USGS, 2010a, Oil Shale and Nahcolite Resources of the Piceance Basin, Colorado, National Oil 

and Gas Assessment Project, Digital Data Series DDS–69–Y, U.S. Geological Survey Oil Shale 

Assessment Team. 
Final OSTS PEIS 1-27 

USGS 2010b, Oil Shale Resources of the Uinta Basin, Utah and Colorado, National Oil and Gas 

Assessment Project, Digital Data Series DDS–69–BB, U.S. Geological Survey Oil Shale 

Assessment Team. 

USGS, 2011, Oil Shale Resources of the Eocene Green River Formation, Greater Green River 

Basin, Wyoming, Colorado, and Utah, National Oil and Gas Assessment Project, Digital Data 

Series DDS–69–DD, U.S. Geological Survey Oil Shale Assessment Team.

Vanden Berg, M.D., 2008, Basin-wide Evaluation of the Uppermost Green River Formation’s 

Oil-Shale Resource, Uinta Basin, Utah and Colorado, Utah Geological Survey, Utah 

Department of Natural Resources, Nov. 13. 

Wiig, S., 2006a, personal communication from Wiig (BLM Rock Springs Field Office, Wyo.) to 

P. Perlowitz (BLM Wyoming State Office, Cheyenne), June 13.

Wiig, S., 2006b, personal communication from Wiig (BLM Rock Springs Field Office, Wyo.) to 

K.P. Smith (Argonne National Laboratory, Lakewood, Colo.), June 27. 

 
Final OSTS PEIS 1-28 

This page intentionally left blank. 
Final OSTS PEIS 2-1 

2 DESCRIPTIONS OF ALTERNATIVES 

2.1 INTRODUCTION 

 This PEIS examines alternatives for designating public lands managed by the BLM as 

available or not available for application for future commercial leasing of both oil shale and tar 

sands resources. The phrase “available for application for leasing” is used above, and throughout 

the PEIS, rather than “available for leasing” to highlight that, unlike the BLM’s practice with 

respect to oil and gas leasing, additional analysis, including but not limited to NEPA, NHPA, and 

ESA, would be required prior to the issuance of any lease of oil shale or tar sands resources, even 

in areas designated as “available” through the planning process. For each of the resources, oil 

shale and tar sands, there are four alternatives analyzed in detail. Alternative 1 (the No Action 

Alternative) does not amend plans. Management prescriptions in existing plans are not modified. 

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 describe different management approaches to amending RMPs to 

designate certain lands as being available, and certain lands as being not available, for 

application for future commercial leasing and development. The BLM’s approach is designed to 

ensure that oil shale technologies can operate at economic and environmentally acceptable levels 

before the agency authorizes full-scale commercial leasing on public lands. Future oil shale and 

tar sands commercial development on public lands in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming would be 

conducted pursuant to regulations applicable to these respective resources.

 This chapter presents information on each of the oil shale and tar sands alternatives 

examined in this PEIS. Specifically, the following sections describe the existing requirements 

and BLM policies potentially applicable to oil shale and tar sands development, the oil shale and 

tar sands resources, the suite of technologies included in the scope of this PEIS, the constraints 

evaluated in each alternative, and the comparison of alternatives. In addition, this chapter 

discusses the alternatives and issues considered by the BLM in preparing this PEIS that were 

eliminated from detailed analysis or from further consideration at this time. As the decision to 

be made in this process is a land use allocation decision, this chapter also briefly outlines the 

Proposed Plan Amendment, to highlight the relationship between the allocations proposed for 

adoption and the alternatives analyzed, which form the basis of this Proposed Plan Amendment. 

 This PEIS analyzes four alternatives in detail for allocation of oil shale (two of these 

include sub-alternatives), and four analogous alternatives for allocation of tar sands: the 

No Action Alternative and three land allocation alternatives. Since the resources lie in separate 

geographical areas and employ difference extraction and processing technologies, separate 

parallel discussions are presented for oil shale and tar sands. While oil shale and tar sands are 

discussed in separate sections, the four alternatives analyzed under each resource are defined in 

the same way with respect to land allocation considerations. Specifically, the types of land 

exclusions defining the alternatives are the same for each resource. 
Final OSTS PEIS 2-2 

2.2 EXISTING STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS AND BLM POLICIES 

POTENTIALLY APPLICABLE TO OIL SHALE AND TAR SANDS 

DEVELOPMENT 

 Commercial leasing and development of oil shale or tar sands resources on public lands 

will be subject to existing federal, state, and local laws and regulatory requirements as well as 

established BLM policies. The purpose of including the following information is to convey that 

management of public lands is subject to a wide array of requirements that are over and above 

decisions that will be made in the ROD for this PEIS. These requirements are not subject to 

decisions in the ROD but serve to provide context for those decisions. 

2.2.1 Existing Relevant Statutory Requirements 

 This section discusses, in very general terms, the major laws, E.O.s, and policies that may 

provide environmental protection and compliance requirements for oil shale or tar sands leasing 

and development projects on public lands in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. Because these 

projects would vary on the basis of design, size, specific activities, and location, the requirements 

described here may not apply to all projects. Lists of specific E.O.s and federal and state laws are 

provided in Appendix D. 

 The BLM conducts its operations in accordance with FLPMA, as well as other public 

land laws, and with numerous statutes, regulations, and standards regarding environmental 

protection. In addition, E.O. 12088, “Federal Compliance with Pollution Control Standards” 

(U.S. President 1978), as amended by E.O. 13148, “Greening of Government through Leadership 

in Environmental Management” (U.S. President 2000), requires federal agencies (including the 

BLM) to comply with applicable administrative and procedural pollution control standards 

established by, but not limited to, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 

(RCRA), Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 (TSCA), Clean Air Act of 1990 (CAA), Noise 

Control Act of 1972 (NCA), Clean Water Act of 1987 (CWA), and Safe Drinking Water Act of 

1974 (SDWA). Other compliance requirements may include the Emergency Planning and 

Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA), hazardous material transportation laws, 

ecological resources requirements (e.g., ESA), and cultural and paleontological resources 

requirements (e.g., NHPA, NAGRPA, the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979, and 

Subtitle D (Paleontological Resources Preservation) of the Omnibus Public Land Management 

Act of 2009). 

 In the Energy Policy Act of 2005, among many energy-related provisions, Section 369 

titled the “Oil Shale, Tar Sands, and Other Strategic Unconventional Fuels Act,” provided 

direction to the Secretary of the Interior to complete a PEIS for a commercial leasing program 

for oil shale and tar sands resources on public lands; publish a final regulation establishing a 

commercial leasing program; consult with the Governors of states with significant oil shale and 

tar sands resources on public lands, representatives of local governments in such states, 

interested Indian tribes, and other interested persons, to determine the level of support and 

interest in the states in the development of tar sands and oil shale resources; and, if sufficient 
Final OSTS PEIS 2-3 

support and interest exists in a state, the Secretary may conduct a lease sale in that state under the 

commercial leasing program. 

 The MLA authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to lease deposits of oil shale and the 

surface of public lands containing the deposits, or lands adjacent thereto, as may be required for 

the extraction and reduction of leased minerals. It also authorizes the issuance of right-of-way 

(ROW) grants for oil and gas, synthetic fuels, and refined products gathering and distribution 

pipelines and related facilities not already authorized through a lease. Under the MLA, the lease 

may not exceed 5,760 acres1 and may be of an indeterminate period. The Secretary of the 

Interior may impose conditions on the lease, including requirements relative to methods of 

mining, prevention of waste, and productive development. 

 The BLM also conducts its operations in compliance with applicable land use laws, 

including, but not limited to, the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, the National Trails System 

Act of 1968, and the Wilderness Act of 1964. In addition, any leasing of public lands for oil 

shale or tar sands development that may impinge on NPS lands would require the BLM to 

analyze potential impacts on the park lands, including the potential to impair park resources 

addressed in the National Park Service Organic Act of 1916. Under current regulations, issuance 

of combined hydrocarbon leases within units of the NPS shall be allowed only where mineral 

leasing is permitted by law, where the lands are open to mineral resource disposition in 

accordance with any applicable Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Plan, and the Regional 

Director of the NPS finds that there will be no resulting significant adverse impacts on the 

resources and administration of the unit or other contiguous units of the NPS. 

 Several other land use laws may guide development of a leasing plan for commercial oil 

shale or tar sands development. As discussed in Chapter 1, the BLM has authority pursuant to 

FLPMA and the Federal Land Exchange Facilitation Act of 1994 to exchange public land or 

interests in it for nonfederal land or interests when the exchange serves the public good. 

 Oil shale and tar sands development projects may require ROWs on or across public land 

for project facilities. A ROW grant is the authorization to use a particular parcel of public land 

for specific facilities for a definite time period. FLPMA authorizes the BLM to issue ROW 

grants for uses such as roads and electrical power generation, transmission, and distribution 

systems. The MLA authorizes the agency to issue ROW grants for oil and gas gathering and 

distribution pipelines and related facilities not already authorized through a lease, and oil and 

natural gas transmission pipelines and related facilities. ROW grants carry conditions that require 

compliance with applicable environmental protection standards. 

 State and county laws and regulations also are applicable to oil shale or tar sands 

development projects to the extent consistent with federal law. In some cases, states have 

federally approved regulatory programs that meet or exceed the environmental protections 

provided by federal statutes and regulations (such as those under the CWA). States and counties 

 

1 The acreage limit was increased from 5,120 acres by amendment of the MLA in Section 369 (i)(1) of the Energy 

Policy Act of 2005. 
Final OSTS PEIS 2-4 

also have developed laws to address concerns specific to their locations and resources with 

which federally approved projects must generally comply. 

 The potentially applicable laws have been divided into general categories, as described 

alphabetically below. Although the following descriptions often cite federal laws, state and 

county laws can also fall into these categories. Appendix D provides a list of federal, state, and 

county laws and E.O.s by category. 

• Air quality. Air emissions from a development project are subject to the CAA, 

as amended. The CAA provides that each state must develop and submit for 

approval to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) a State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) for controlling air pollution and air quality in that 

state, and that each state must develop its own regulations to monitor, permit, 

and control air emissions within its boundaries. Under Section 112(r) of the 

CAA, owners and operators of facilities that produce, process, handle, or store 

specific hazardous substances above threshold quantities must meet certain 

requirements for planning and reporting and risk management planning 

requirements. Although the States of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming each 

administer their own SIPs, the EPA has retained regulatory primacy over air 

quality within the boundaries of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation.

• Cultural resources. Cultural resources that may be affected by federal 

undertakings are subject to the requirements of various laws, regulations, and 

policies for identification and consideration in consultation with tribal, state, 

and/or federal entities, and mitigation actions may be required. Under the 

auspices of the 2012 National Programmatic Agreement (PA) and individual 

state protocols, the BLM has an agency-specific process for complying with 

Section 106 of the NHPA.

• Energy projects. Project operations and facilities may require construction of 

facilities such as pipelines, gathering lines, transmission lines, or generation 

facilities. Depending on the nature of these facilities, siting will be subject to 

all applicable legal requirements. 

• Floodplains and wetlands. The locations of project facilities will be subject 

to statutory requirements and regulations for protection of wetlands or 

floodplains, such as Section 404 of the CWA. The fundamental rationale of 

Section 404 of the Clean Water Act program is that no discharge of dredged 

or fill material into waters of the United States should be permitted if there is 

a practicable alternative that would be less damaging to aquatic resources or if 

significant degradation would occur to the nation’s waters. The guidelines at 

Section 404(b)(1) of the Clean Water Act state that permit review and 

issuance follow a sequential process that encourages avoidance of impacts, 

followed by minimizing impacts, and finally requiring mitigation for 

unavoidable impacts to the aquatic environment. 
Final OSTS PEIS 2-5 

• Groundwater, drinking water, and water rights. The provision of drinking 

water from wells or surface water to a nontransient noncommunity water 

system at project facilities would require compliance with the SDWA. In 

addition, the withdrawal of surface or groundwater for industrial or drinking 

water purposes may require state and/or local approvals or permits. 

• Hazardous materials. Hazardous materials may be used in the construction 

and operation of a project. Storage and use of fuels, petroleum, oils, 

lubricants, and other hazardous materials at approved project facilities are 

subject to numerous federal and state regulations. 

• Hazardous waste and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Hazardous wastes 

(e.g., used solvents and paints) generated by a project must be accumulated, 

collected, transported, and disposed of in accordance with RCRA. If PCBs are 

used during the construction and operation of a project, they would have to be 

managed in accordance with the TSCA. 

• Noise. The EPA issued guidelines for outdoor noise levels that are consistent 

with the protection of human health and welfare against hearing loss, 

annoyance, and activity interference (EPA 1974). This guideline states that 

annoyance and undue interference with activity will not occur if outdoor 

levels of noise are maintained at an energy equivalent of 55 decibels (dBA). 

However, this level is not to be construed as a legally enforceable standard at 

this time. Noise is also subject to state and local government regulation that 

may affect operations, either from the perspective of work safety or when near 

residential areas. 

• Paleontological resources. The new authority for the management, 

preservation, and protection of paleontological resources on the National 

System of Public Lands is the Paleontological Resources Preservation 

subtitle (Subtitle D) of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 

(16 USC 470aaa et seq.). The Act requires that (1) paleontological resources 

collected under a permit remain the property of the United States to be 

preserved for the public and curated in an approved repository; (2) the nature 

and location of paleontological resources be kept confidential to protect them 

from theft and vandalism; and (3) civil and criminal penalties, including fines 

and imprisonment, be imposed when theft and vandalism to publicly owned 

paleontological resources occur. Paleontological resources on public lands 

will continue to be protected under FLPMA for mitigation purposes. Criminal 

and civil penalties for theft, vandalism, and other charges related to damage, 

destruction, or trafficking of paleontological resources are now covered under 

16 USC 470aaa-5 to 470aaa-7. Supplementary counts may still be issued for 

Theft of Government Property under 16 USC 641 and/or for Destruction of 

Government Property (18 USC 1361). Other federal acts, such as the Federal 

Cave Resources Protection Act and the Archaeological Resources Protection 

Act, protect paleontological resources found in significant caves and/or in 
Final OSTS PEIS 2-6 

association with archaeological resources. Paleontological resources found in 

context with archaeological resources are protected as archaeological 

resources. 

• Pesticides and noxious weeds. Pesticide application during the construction 

and operation of a project must comply with the Federal Insecticide, 

Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act of 1974 and equivalent state requirements. 

E.O. 13112 directed all federal agencies to limit the infestation and spread of 

invasive non-native species. State and local government agencies also exercise 

authorities to treat areas and regulate invasive species. All oil shale and tar 

sands operations must comply with both federal direction and state law. 

• Rangeland resources. Rangeland management is a principal focus for the 

BLM, and legislative authority and regulations vary widely by specific 

program. In the current context, two components of the rangeland 

management program are highlighted: livestock grazing management and 

management of wild horses and burros. Grazing management direction 

derives primarily from the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934, as amended, and the 

Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 USC 1701 et seq.). 

Grazing regulations based on this legislative direction are contained in 

43 CFR Part 4100. Authority for the management of wild horses and burros 

derives from the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971 

(16 USC 1331 et seq.) and regulations implementing legislative direction are 

found in 43 CFR Part 4700. 

• Solid wastes. Solid wastes generated during the construction, operation, and 

decommissioning of a project must be managed in accordance with the Solid 

Waste Disposal Act of 1976 and state and local requirements for solid waste 

accumulation, collection, transportation, and disposal. 

• Source water protection. Under Part C of the SDWA, “Protection of 

Underground Sources of Drinking Water,” each state is to establish a wellhead 

protection program to delineate wellhead protection areas, identify potential 

sources of contamination, and establish control measures to prevent 

contamination of drinking water sources. If hazardous chemicals or materials 

are used during the construction or operation of a project that is located within 

a wellhead protection area, reporting or control measures may apply. 

• Water bodies and wastewater. The discharge of wastewater (e.g., sanitary 

wastewater treatment systems or rinse/test waters) or the discharge of spent 

shale leachate into waters of the United States or waters of a state will require 

a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit or the 

state equivalent. According to administrative and judicial interpretation, the 

scope of the federal CWA jurisdiction over waters of the United States 

depends on technical, site-specific factors. Regulated bodies of water could 

include, but are not limited to, interstate and intrastate lakes, rivers, and 
Final OSTS PEIS 2-7 

streams, and certain wetlands, playa lakes, prairie potholes, mudflats, 

intermittent streams, and wet meadows. In addition, the CWA requires an 

NPDES permit or the state equivalent for certain stormwater discharges. Spill 

prevention, control, and countermeasure plans may also be required to prevent 

oil spills from reaching regulated waters, adjoining shorelines, intermittent 

streams, or wet meadows, but only if these are hydrologically connected to the 

navigable waters of the United States. States may have their own planning 

requirements for other waters. Discharges of dredged or fill material into 

waters of the United States or any work in, over, or under regulated waters 

will require a Section 404 or Section 410 permit, respectively, from the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 

• Water quality. The EPA enacted a regulation in December 1974 that set forth 

a basinwide salinity control policy for the Colorado River Basin. In 1975, the 

Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum (CRBSCF) proposed, the Basin 

States adopted, and the EPA approved water quality standards to control 

salinity increases in the Colorado River. These standards, including the 

numeric criteria and plan of implementation, are to be reviewed every 3 years. 

Federal, state, and tribal water quality standards may also be applicable. 

• Ecological resources. Among the BLM’s land management objectives are 

protection and improvement of habitat for all federally listed species, BLMdesignated sensitive species (i.e., the list published by the BLM state office of 

species occurring on public lands whose populations or habitats are rare or in 

significant decline), and state-listed species. The BLM evaluates all projects 

and activities occurring on public lands to ensure that they will not contribute 

to the need to list species as threatened or endangered. 

 In addition to these categories, the construction and operation of an oil shale or tar sands 

development project on public land with overlapping valid existing mining claims in place must 

not materially interfere with the mining claimants’ rights to mine, remove, or sell the minerals 

from the claim (30 USC 26). Projects may also be subject to the health and safety standards 

of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 and the Occupational Safety and Health 

Act of 1970. 

 Requirements to consider impacts of leasing public land for oil shale or tar sands 

development on local populations may fall under several E.O.s, including E.O. 12898, 

“Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and LowIncome Populations” (U.S. President 1994), and E.O. 13045, “Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (U.S. President 1997), depending on the 

activities, location, and other circumstances of the lease. 
Final OSTS PEIS 2-8 

2.2.2 Existing Relevant BLM Policies and Mitigation Guidance 

 In September 2008, the BLM issued a Proposed Plan Amendments and Final OSTS PEIS 

analyzing the environmental and socioeconomic impacts of amending 12 land use plans in 

Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming to designate public lands administered by the BLM as available 

for application for commercial leasing for oil shale or tar sands development (BLM 2008a). The 

November 17, 2008, ROD (BLM 2008b) that followed this PEIS adopted the proposed land use 

amendments reflecting the allocation decisions analyzed in the 2008 OSTS PEIS. These land 

allocation decisions, which are currently in effect, were challenged in a lawsuit brought by a 

coalition of environmental interests in January 2009. As part of a settlement agreement to the 

lawsuit and in light of new information that has emerged since the 2008 OSTS PEIS was 

prepared, the BLM has decided to take a fresh look at the land allocations analyzed in the 

2008 OSTS PEIS and to consider excluding certain lands from future leasing of oil shale and tar 

sands resources. 

 As noted in Chapter 1, the following decisions from the 2008 OSTS PEIS ROD will be 

carried forward through this planning process and would be applicable regardless of the 

alternative eventually selected for adoption: the requirement for future NEPA analyses and 

consultation activities to occur prior to any decision to lease and/or develop oil shale and tar 

sands resources; and the specific decision that the BLM will consider and give priority to the use 

of land exchanges to facilitate commercial oil shale development pursuant to Section 369(n) of 

the Energy Policy Act of 2005. 

 The 2008 OSTS PEIS was prepared simultaneously with the rulemaking process that 

concluded with promulgation of the 2008 oil shale regulations in November 2008 (73 FR 69469) 

(Nov. 18, 2008; codified at 43 CFR Parts 3900-3930). The 2008 OSTS PEIS, however, did not 

analyze those regulations. The regulations were analyzed through a separate NEPA process. 

Thus the 2008 OSTS PEIS did not pre-judge or try to predict the final regulations or any impact 

they might have on development of oil shale resources. The final regulations remain in effect, 

although the Department will be proposing some amendments to them in a separate rulemaking 

proceeding. Those proposed amendments will be considered in a separate document under 

NEPA and will not be analyzed here. 

 Similarly, there are regulations in place that govern the leasing and development of tar 

sands. As explained in Chapter 1, the Combined Hydrocarbon Leasing Act of 1981 (P.L. 97-78) 

amended the MLA to authorize the Secretary to issue CHLs in areas containing substantial 

deposits of tar sands, which were to be designated as STSAs. This Act further specified that a 

CHL was the only type of lease that could be offered in these STSAs, provided for the 

conversion of existing oil and gas leases or tar sands claims in these areas to CHLs, and 

established the maximum lease size as 5,120 acres. The CHL Act defined oil as all nongaseous 

hydrocarbons except coal, oil shale, gilsonite, and other vein-type solid hydrocarbons. Eleven 

STSAs were designated in 1980 and 1981. The BLM published regulations implementing the 

leasing provisions of this Act in February 1983 at 43 CFR Part 3140. Subsequently, the BLM 

prepared the Utah Combined Hydrocarbon Leasing EIS (BLM 1984). Tar sands resources 

located outside of these STSAs were not subject to the requirements of 43 CFR Part 3140 and 

are available for development under oil and gas leases. 
Final OSTS PEIS 2-9 

 Under the authority of the Combined Hydrocarbon Leasing Act, six CHLs were issued in 

the mid-1980s within the Pariette and P.R. Spring STSAs in the Vernal Field Office; these leases 

remain in existence. Also in the mid-1980s, a number of operators holding oil and gas leases or 

tar sands claims within the designated STSAs applied to convert their leases to CHLs. In most 

instances, the conversion of these leases has not been completed; thus a number of pending 

conversion applications remain within the study area, specifically within the Circle Cliffs, Tar 

Sand Triangle, and P.R. Spring STSAs. The BLM is currently engaged in adjudication of these 

applications. On December 1, 1995, the Utah State Office issued a number of combined 

hydrocarbon leases, of which 13 are still viable. 

 On May 18, 2006, pursuant to Section 350 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which 

amended the MLA to allow separate oil and gas leases and tar sands leases in designated 

STSAs, the BLM issued a final rule on leasing in STSAs (71 FR 28779, codified at 

43 CFR Part 3141). The final rule authorizes the BLM to issue separate leases for exploration for 

and extraction of tar sands, separate leases for exploration for and development of oil and gas, 

and separate leases for CHLs within designated STSAs. Under the rule, all three types of leases 

would have primary terms of 10 years; CHLs and oil and gas leases would remain in effect as 

long thereafter as oil or gas is produced in commercial quantities; tar sands leases would remain 

in effect after the 10-year term as long as tar sands are produced in commercial quantities. The 

final rule increases the maximum acreage of CHLs or tar sands leases in a STSA from 5,120 to 

5,760 acres, establishes the minimum acceptable bid for tar sands leases at $2.00 per acre, and 

requires that tar sands leases be issued by competitive processes only. In addition, under the final 

rule, leasing STSAs in NPS units is allowed only where mineral leasing is permitted by law and 

where the lands are open to mineral resource disposition in accordance with any applicable 

Minerals Management Plan. The NPS Regional Director also must find that leasing within an 

NPS unit would not result in any significant adverse impacts on the NPS unit or any contiguous 

unit. 

 Decisions in the ROD resulting from this PEIS regarding the availability of lands within 

the STSAs for future commercial leasing will not affect or be affected by the requirements 

established for tar sands leasing in the regulations. 

 In addition to these regulations and policies, the BLM has developed many programspecific policies and guidance documents that establish requirements that may be relevant and/or 

applicable to oil shale or tar sands development. For example, from 1968 to 1989, the Office of 

the Secretary imposed stipulations on oil and gas leases for lands in oil shale areas in Colorado, 

Utah, and Wyoming (DOI 1968). These policies and guidance documents exist in a variety of 

forms, including BLM plans, manuals, handbooks, instruction memoranda, technical references, 

BMPs, standards, directives, and other such documents. The applicability of specific policies and 

guidance documents is discussed to varying degrees in this PEIS but is best assessed at the 

project-specific level. 

 Besides the provisions of the 2008 OSTS PEIS ROD and the regulations governing the 

oil shale and tar sands programs, many elements of existing BLM policies, specifically focused 

on other resources, establish requirements that are relevant and applicable to these types of 

development projects. Examples of policies that will be applicable to oil shale or tar sands 
Final OSTS PEIS 2-10 

development include BLM policies regarding the management of sensitive species and visual, 

cultural, and paleontological resources and BLM’s responsibilities for tribal consultation. 

 Similarly, other existing BLM guidance more general in scope may be applicable to oil 

shale and tar sands development, because this guidance addresses environmental issues that are 

relevant to such development and may provide appropriate mitigation measures. Examples of 

those topics include land use planning, NEPA, oil and gas development, pipeline construction 

and waterway crossings, road construction and maintenance, wildlife management, wild horse 

and burro herd management, ACECs, hazardous materials and waste management, pesticide use 

and integrated pest management, cultural resource management, Tribal consultations, visual 

resource management, and occupational health and safety. A comprehensive review of these 

BLM program-specific mitigation policies is beyond the scope of this PEIS, although discussion 

of many of these policies is included in the impact analyses sections. Readers are advised to 

obtain the complete guidance documents if they seek more information. Electronic copies of 

some of the BLM directives, manuals, and handbooks are available at 

http://www.blm.gov/nhp/efoia. 

2.2.3 Management of BLM-Administered Lands 

 The BLM manages public lands within the affected field offices for a variety of land uses 

and values, including, among others, recreation, mining, oil and gas development, livestock 

grazing, wild horse and burro herd management wildlife resources, visual resources, LWC, 

communication sites, and ROW corridors (e.g., roads, pipelines, and transmission lines). BLMadministered lands are managed within a framework of numerous laws, the most comprehensive 

of which is FLPMA (43 USC 1701 et seq.). Under FLPMA, the BLM manages the public lands 

by using principles of multiple use and sustained yield to provide for the protection and use of 

the myriad resources found on the public lands. In accordance with the requirements of FLPMA, 

the BLM prepares RMPs to identify the resources within each planning area and to establish land 

use allocations, management goals, and prescriptions for the planning area. The RMPs are 

prepared to be consistent with the plans of state and local governments to the maximum extent 

feasible and to be consistent with federal law. These plans are developed with significant public 

involvement and are reviewed by the governors of each state for consistency with state and local 

planning objectives. Under FLPMA, the BLM is required to maintain, amend, and revise its 

RMPs to ensure that they reflect the current conditions and management goals within the 

planning area. 

 FLPMA, and in many cases specific authorizing legislation or proclamations, guides the 

BLM in its management of lands included in the NLCS. The NLCS lands include NCAs, 

National Monuments, Wilderness Areas, WSAs, WSRs, and National Historic and Scenic Trails. 

Other conservation designations within the NLCS are Instant Study Areas (ISAs), Forest 

Reserves, National Recreation Areas (NRAs), Research Natural Areas, and Outstanding Natural 

Areas. 

 FLPMA directs the BLM to give priority to the designation of ACECs. Designated 

ACECs include public lands where special management attention and direction are needed to 
Final OSTS PEIS 2-11 

protect and prevent irreparable damage to important historic, cultural, and scenic values, fish, or 

wildlife resources or other natural systems or processes. ACECs may also be used to protect 

human life and safety from natural hazards. The BLM designates ACECs through land use plans 

that outline management objectives and prescriptions for each ACEC. Table 2.2.3-1 identifies all 

of the existing ACECs that lie within oil shale and tar sands areas. 

 Wilderness Areas are designated by Congress as part of the National Wilderness 

Preservation System to ensure preservation and protection of their natural conditions. They 

TABLE 2.2.3-1 Existing ACECs Intersecting Oil Shale or Tar Sands Areas 

 ACEC Acres 

ACEC Field Office(s) Total 

Within Oil 

Shale Areas 

Within 

STSAs 

 

Colorado 

 Duck Creek White River 3,426 3,426 0 

 Dudley Bluffs White River 1,628 1,628 0 

 East Fork Parachute Creeka Colorado River Valley 6,566 1,289 0 

 Ryan Gulch White River 1,436 1,436 0 

 Trapper Creeka Colorado River Valley, White River 2,845 1,419 0 

 Trapper Creek/Northwater Creeka Colorado River Valley, White River 1,962 1,592 0 

 

Utah 

 Copper Globe Price 124 0 124 

 I-70 Scenic Highway Price 33,094 0 3,240 

 Lears Canyon Vernal 1,378 0 890 

 Lower Green River Vernal 9,353 7,677 0 

 Nine Mile Canyon Vernal and Price 74,368 538 22,335 

 Pariette Wetlands Vernal 10,657 6,533 2,261 

 San Rafael Canyon Price 15,165 0 0 

 Cottonwood-Diamond Watershed Moab 35,080 0 3 

 Lucky Strike Price 892 0 575 

 Shepard’s End Price 3 0 3 

 Wild Horse Canyon Price 710 0 122 

 San Rafael Reef Price 73,229 0 3,807 

 Temple Mountain Price 788 0 788 

 

Wyoming 

 Greater Red Creek Rock Springs 175,207 44,847 0 

 Greater Sand Dunes Rock Springs 41,648 391 0 

 Pine Springs Rock Springs 6,056 6,056 0 

 Special Status Plant Species Rock Springs, Kemmerer 1,177 71 0 

 White Mountain Petroglyphs Rock Springs 22 22 0 

 

(All) 496,811 76,924 35,726 

a Although portions of these ACECs are within the most geologically prospective area, they are also located 

within the Naval Oil Shale Reserve that is closed to application for oil shale leasing. 
Final OSTS PEIS 2-12 

comprise at least 5,000 acres or more in size (or of sufficient size to make administration as 

wilderness practicable); offer outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive and unconfined 

types of recreation; and may contain ecological, geological, or other features that have scientific, 

scenic, or historical value. WSAs are areas identified by a federal land management agency 

(i.e., the BLM, USFS, NPS, or USFWS) as having wilderness characteristics, thus making them 

worthy of consideration by Congress for wilderness designation. While Congress considers 

whether to designate the WSAs as permanent Wilderness Areas, the federal agency managing 

the WSA does so in a manner to prevent impairment of the area’s suitability for wilderness 

designation. 

 Since WSAs were established in the late 1970s and 1980s, designation of wilderness 

lands has been extensively debated, and additional BLM lands have been identified by the public 

as having wilderness characteristics. In 1996, the Secretary of the Interior directed the BLM in 

Utah to evaluate such lands to determine whether they possess wilderness characteristics. 

According to the BLM policy, indicators of an area’s naturalness include the extent of landscape 

modifications, the presence of native vegetation communities, and the connectivity of habitats. 

Outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive and unconfined types of recreation may be 

experienced when the sights, sounds, and evidence of other people are rare or infrequent; in 

locations where visitors can be isolated, alone, or secluded from others; where the use of the 

area is through nonmotorized, nonmechanical means; and where no or minimally developed 

recreation facilities are encountered. A number of areas in the PEIS study area have been 

recognized by the BLM as having wilderness characteristics. Processes are underway in some 

of the BLM field offices where such lands have been identified to determine appropriate 

management requirements, if any, for these areas. For the most part, decisions regarding 

management of these areas will be made at the field office level as part of the local land use 

planning process, or as a separate plan amendment, not as part of this PEIS; however, two of 

the alternatives considered in detail in this PEIS include provisions excluding from future 

consideration of oil shale and tar sands leasing and development any lands identified by the 

BLM as having wilderness characteristics. 

 Under Section 201 of FLPMA, the BLM is required to maintain an inventory of public 

land resources, including LWC.2 Since the original wilderness inventory is more than 30 years 

old, the BLM field offices periodically update the original inventory to identify where LWC are 

currently found. As RMPs are revised, the BLM is considering whether or not LWC within a 

particular RMP area will be managed to protect those wilderness characteristics or if those lands 

will be committed to other uses. The status of the wilderness characteristics inventory for the 

portion of each field office within the oil shale and tar sands study area is included in 

Section 3.1.1 of this PEIS. 

 A river or river section may be designated as a WSR by Congress or the Secretary of the 

Interior under the authority of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968. Land management 

 

2 Wilderness characteristics include: size—roadless areas of at least 5,000 acres of public lands, or of a 

manageable size; naturalness—the land generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces 

of nature; and opportunities—outstanding opportunities for solitude or primitive and unconfined types of 

recreation. 
Final OSTS PEIS 2-13 

agencies conduct inventories of rivers and streams within their jurisdictions and make 

recommendations to Congress regarding the potential inclusion of suitable rivers in the WSR 

system as part of their land use planning process. These special areas are managed to protect 

outstanding scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural, or other values, 

and to preserve the river or river section in its free-flowing condition. WSR boundaries are 

established to include a corridor of land along either side of the river as determined to be 

appropriate for protection of the river’s values. The law recognizes three classes of rivers: wild, 

scenic, and recreational. It is the BLM’s policy to manage potentially eligible and suitable3

WSRs in a manner to prevent impairment of the river’s suitability for WSR designation until 

Congress or the Secretary makes a final determination regarding the river’s status. During this 

interim period, a corridor extending at least 0.25 mi from the “high water” mark on each bank of 

the river is established. 

 National Historic and Scenic Trails are designated by Congress under the National Trails 

System Act of 1968 (NTSA). National Historic Trails follow as closely as possible the original 

trails or routes of travel with national historical significance. Such designation identifies and 

protects historic routes and their historic remnants and artifacts for public use and enjoyment. 

National Scenic Trails are extended trails that offer maximum outdoor recreational potential and 

provide enjoyment of the various qualities (e.g., scenic, historical, natural, and cultural) in the 

areas through which they pass. The prospective oil shale resources in Wyoming intersect with 

several NTSA segments, including the Oregon and Mormon Pioneer Trails and California and 

Pony Express Trails. 

 BLM-administered lands support a wide array of recreational activities important to 

growing numbers of local, regional, and national users. While unstructured or “dispersed” 

recreation uses are common on public lands, developed recreation sites, Special Recreation 

Management Areas (SRMAs), and off-highway vehicle (OHV) areas are all use areas found 

within the PEIS study area. 

 A significant portion of the public lands within the most geologically prospective oil 

shale area is undergoing oil and gas resource development. Conflicts in development among 

resources (e.g., oil shale or tar sands and oil and gas) may occur. Generally, the concept of prior 

existing rights would prevail, except in some instances when existing stipulations would take 

precedence; however, it is the BLM’s policy to optimize recovery of natural resources in an 

effort to secure the maximum return to the public in revenue and energy production; prevent 

avoidable waste of the public’s resources utilizing authority under existing statutes, regulations, 

and lease terms; honor the rights of lessees, subject to the terms of existing leases and sound 

principles of resource conservation; and protect public health and safety and mitigate 

environmental impacts. Conflicts among competing resource uses are generally considered and 

 

3 As part of recent revisions of a number of land use plans, WSR inventories have been undertaken. Where a river 

or river segment is found to be “eligible” for inclusion in the WSR system as part of one of these inventories, the 

BLM’s Land Use Planning Handbook (H-1601-1) (BLM 2005) directs the BLM to protect the lands along the 

eligible segment until a “suitability” determination has been made as part of the land use planning process. If the 

river or river segment is found to be “non-suitable,” the lands along the river then would be available for other 

uses. If a segment is found to be “suitable” for inclusion in the WSR system, protections will remain in place 

until Congress or the Secretary acts on BLM’s recommendation for designation. 
Final OSTS PEIS 2-14 

resolved when processing potential leasing actions or evaluating requests for approvals of plans 

of development (see also Section 4.2.1.1).

 As discussed in Chapter 1, Section 369(n) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 required the 

Secretary to consider and give priority to the use of land exchanges to facilitate the recovery of 

unconventional fuels. The Act dictates that any land exchange undertaken shall be implemented 

in accordance with Section 206 of FLPMA. The BLM’s policy for land exchanges under 

Section 206 recognizes that a land exchange is a common-sense tool that enables the BLM and 

other landowners to improve land management and consolidate ownership. Therefore, where it 

can be demonstrated that the public interest will be well served, land exchanges may be 

considered on a case-by-case basis when the result will consolidate ownership and improve 

management of natural resources. Land exchanges, however, are not completed on an acre-foracre basis, but instead are completed on an equal-value basis. One of the more challenging 

aspects of the land exchange process is developing an exchange proposal where the appraised 

values of the federal and nonfederal lands are equal. Given the complexities of achieving equalvalue land exchanges, especially recognizing the difficulty in valuing a commodity like oil shale 

or tar sands, a viable exchange proposal may be difficult to achieve. The initial basis for 

considering land exchange opportunities lies within existing land use plans. 

2.3 OIL SHALE 

 Oil shale is a term used to cover a wide range of fine-grained, organic-rich sedimentary 

rocks. Oil shale does not contain liquid hydrocarbons or petroleum as such but organic matter 

derived mainly from aquatic organisms. This organic matter, kerogen, may be converted to oil 

through destructive distillation or exposure to heat. The most prospective oil shale deposits in the 

United States are contained within sedimentary deposits of the Green River Formation in the 

greater Green River Basin (including Green River Basin and Washakie Basin) in southwestern 

Wyoming and northwestern Colorado, the Piceance Basin in northwestern Colorado, and the 

Uinta Basin in northeastern Utah. As discussed in Section 1.2, the analyses in this PEIS focus on 

the most geologically prospective oil shale resources in these basins (i.e., the oil shale study area) 

shown in Figure 2.3-1. In Colorado and Utah, these are defined as those deposits that are 

expected to yield 25 gal/ton or more of shale oil and that are 25 ft thick or greater. In Wyoming, 

where the oil shale resource quality is not as high as it is in Colorado and Utah, the most 

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

shale oil and that are 15 ft thick or greater. Figure 2.3-1 shows the Green River Formation basins 

and the most geologically prospective oil shale resources within those basins. Table 2.3-1 lists 

the total size in acres of the Green River Formation basins and the most geologically prospective 

oil shale resources by state, along with the total number of acres of BLM-administered and split 

estate lands within the most geologically prospective area within each state. 

 Most, but not all, oil shale is actually the rock marlstone, which contains kerogen, a 

precursor to oil. The kerogen must be heated to from 600oF to 750oF to convert it into oil because 

it was never buried deeply enough for nature to convert the kerogen to oil. Oil shale should not 

be confused with shale oil. In shale oil, the strata were buried deeply enough that the temperature 

was sufficiently high to naturally convert the kerogen into oil. Currently, a major exploration 
Final OSTS PEIS 2-15 

FIGURE 2.3-1 Green River Formation Basins in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming; the Most 

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

Shale Resources Is ≤500 ft 
Final OSTS PEIS 2-16 

TABLE 2.3-1 Total Size in Acres of the Green River Formation Basins, Most Geologically 

Prospective Oil Shale Areas, and Acres of BLM-Administered and Split Estate Lands within 

the Most Geologically Prospective Areas in Each Statea,b

State 

Total Size 

of Basin 

Total Size 

of Most 

Geologically 

Prospective 

Area 

Total 

BLM-Administered 

Lands in Most 

Geologically 

Prospective Area 

Total Split 

Estate Lands 

in Most 

Geologically 

Prospective 

Area 

 

Colorado 

Piceance Basin 1,185,700 503,342 307,165 39,886 

 

Utah 

Uinta Basinc 2,977,900 840,572 560,870 76,820 

 

Wyoming 

Green River and Washakie Basins 4,506,200 2,194,483 1,244,162 38,219 

 

Total 8,669,800 3,538,297 2,112,197 154,926 

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

information system (GIS) data compiled for the PEIS analyses. The GIS data may contain errors; 

therefore, these estimates should be considered to be only representative of the size of the oil shale 

resources and the distribution of BLM-administered and split estate lands. 

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

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

c The split estate lands include 57,705 acres within the Hill Creek Extension of the Uintah and Ouray 

Reservation on which the surface rights are owned by the Ute Indian Tribe. 

effort is being carried out in Colorado to produce oil from the Niobrara shales, primarily in 

eastern Colorado. In shale oil plays such as the Bakken in North Dakota and Montana, the 

objective is to find brittle layers in the shale, drill horizontal holes along those brittle layers, 

artificially fracture the rock, and produce the resulting oil. 

 Currently, there is no commercial production of oil from oil shale being undertaken in the 

United States. However, several companies, including Red Leaf Resources and Enefit American 

Oil Company, are planning commercial production in the near future in the Unita Basin. 

Considerable interest exists, however, as reflected by the numerous R&D efforts underway, 

including the BLM’s ongoing oil shale RD&D program. As discussed in Section 1.4.1, under the 

BLM’s oil shale RD&D program, seven RD&D leases have been issued in the Piceance Basin of 

Colorado (one each awarded to American Shale Oil, LLC [AMSO], Chevron Shale Oil 

Company, ExxonMobil, Natural Soda, and three awarded to Shell Frontier Oil & Gas), and one 

RD&D lease has been issued in the Uinta Basin, Utah (awarded to OSEC, which was purchased 

by Enefit American Oil in 2011). The locations of the eight approved and one pending 

(Aurasource) RD&D projects are shown in Figure 2.3-2. In the PEIS, these leases are recognized 
Final OSTS PEIS 2-17 

as prior existing rights, and development will proceed under the lease terms under all alternatives 

being considered. For purposes of this analysis, it was assumed that all of the sites could reach 

full commercial development and may utilize the full acreage available to them under their 

leases. The very limited decisions being considered in this PEIS regarding the areas included in 

the RD&D leases are described in Sections 2.3.2 and 2.3.3. Table 2.3-2 briefly describes the 

RD&D projects; more detailed descriptions of these projects are contained in Appendix A. 

 A second round of solicitations of interest in RD&D leases was issued by the BLM on 

November 3, 2009. Three nomination packages were submitted; all three were selected for 

further consideration, including preparation of EAs under NEPA. The projects that were selected 

include two projects in the Piceance Basin, Colorado (one from ExxonMobil Exploration 

Company and one from Natural Soda Holdings, Inc.), and one project in the Uintah Basin, Utah, 

submitted by Aurasource. The two Colorado projects have completed NEPA analysis and were 

granted RD&D leases in the fall of 2012. These two projects are included in the seven RD&D 

leases mentioned above. Aurasource, the company in Utah, has not indicated a willingness to 

move forward in the lease approval process. Figure 2.3-2 shows the first- –and second-round 

RD&D projects, referring to years 2008 and 2010, respectively, the approximate dates of the 

actual solicitations. Table 2.3-2 briefly describes the new RD&D projects; more detailed 

descriptions of the two approved projects are provided in Appendix A. 

 The BLM, under the direction of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, completed regulations 

that would be used to authorize commercial oil shale leasing. The BLM published a final rule 

for the management of a commercial oil shale leasing program in the Federal Register on 

November 18, 2008. In 2009, a consortium of plaintiffs filed two lawsuits in the federal District 

of Colorado, each now captioned CEC v. Salazar, against the BLM and the Department of the 

Interior. The first suit challenged the BLM’s 2008 oil shale regulations. This suit was settled. 

Under the settlement agreement filed with the U.S. District Court in Colorado, the BLM agreed 

to propose changes to the rule and to publish a final rule by November 18, 2012. 

2.3.1 Potential Commercial Oil Shale Development Technologies 

 This section briefly describes the oil shale development technologies that the BLM 

believes may be used commercially in the 20-year time frame assessed in this PEIS. The BLM 

has chosen a 20-year time frame because that is the customary time frame used in resource 

management planning cycles. Appendix A provides a more detailed discussion of potential 

technologies that may be used over the next 20 years, along with a brief history of oil shale 

development. Information presented in this section and Appendix A regarding technologies that 

could be used is taken from the best available published data. Because commercial oil shale 

development technologies are still largely in an R&D phase, many details regarding the specific 

technologies that may be used in the future to produce oil from oil shale are unknown. In the 

absence of reasonably complete information about the technologies that may be deployed, a 

number of assumptions have been made. These assumptions are discussed in Section 4.1. 

 Development of oil shale resources occurs in three major steps: (1) recovery or extraction 

from the natural setting, (2) processing to separate organic and inorganic constituents, and 
FIGURE 2.3-2 Locations of the Nine RD&D Tracts and Associated PRLAs 
Final OSTS PEIS 2-19 

TABLE 2.3-2 Summary Information for the Eight Existing and One Proposed Oil Shale 

RD&D Projectsa

Projectb Technology 

Design Basis 

for Facility 

(bbl/day)c

Total Annual 

Production 

(thousand bbl/yr) 

Total 

Acreage 

Impacted 

 

First Round 

AMSO In situ processes 23 2 90 

Chevron In situ processes 20–50 7.3–18.25 100 

Enefitd Underground mine with surface retort 60–3,900 23–1,400 120 

Shell Project 1 In situ conversion process (ICP) 10–30 1.5–4 160 

Shell Project 2 Two-step ICP 10–30 1.5 160 

Shell Project 3 Electric ICP 10–30 1.5–4 160 

 

Second Round 

Aurasource NAe NA NA 160 

ExxonMobilf In situ processes 400–700 NA 160 

Natural Sodaf

 In situ processes NA NA 160 

a RD&D projects in Round 1 and two of the Round 2 are current approved projects. The Aurasource 

project in Round 2 is pending as of 2012.

b Chevron = Chevron U.S.A., Inc.; AMSO = American Shale Oil, LLC; Enefit = Enefit American Oil; 

ExxonMobil = ExxonMobil Exploration Company; Natural Soda = Natural Soda Holdings, Inc.; 

Shell = Shell Frontier Oil and Gas. 

c bbl = barrel; 1 bbl oil = 42 gal. 

d Enefit (formerly OSEC) is currently proposing to build a 50,000-bbl/day facility. 

e NA = data not available. 

f Sources: ExxonMobil (2011); Natural Soda Holdings (2011).

(3) upgrading the organic components in anticipation of further refining into conventional fuels. 

The physical and chemical features of oil shale deposits and other circumstantial factors 

associated with their deposition dictate the most appropriate development schemes. Typical 

development schemes always involve each of the above major steps, although many different 

combinations of these steps are possible, and many interim steps may also be necessary. In 

addition, all oil shale development projects also must stabilize and properly dispose of wastes 

and byproducts. For mining technologies, spent shale is a significant waste management concern. 

 The recovery or extraction technologies can be divided into direct and indirect recovery 

methods. Direct recovery methods include both surface mining and underground mining 

technologies wherein the oil shale is removed from its physical location for processing for 

recovery of the hydrocarbon constituents. Indirect recovery methods recover the hydrocarbon 

constituents from the oil shale without requiring the excavation of the oil shale inorganic (rock) 

matrix. Such processes can include in situ processing technologies, as well as some other 

enhanced oil recovery technologies developed primarily for the recovery of conventional oil and 

gas, in varying combinations that may be used in commercial oil shale development. Appendix A 
Final OSTS PEIS 2-20 

provides a detailed discussion of each of the individual technologies and some of the possible 

combinations of technologies that may be used in commercial oil shale development. 

 Processing technologies to separate the organic and inorganic constituents typically use 

retorting technologies that apply heat to the oil shale to pyrolyze (break down with high 

temperature) the kerogen. Chemical treatment processes also may be applied. Aboveground 

retorting (AGR) technologies are used to process mined oil shale; the retorting processes are 

typically preceded by a variety of pretreatment activities, including crushing, sizing, and sorting. 

A number of AGR technologies have been designed in the past and are considered to be 

potentially applicable for future commercial oil shale development. These technologies include 

the Union B retort, The Oil Shale Corporation (TOSCO) II retort, Paraho retort (both direct and 

indirect modes), Lurgi-Ruhrgas process, Superior Oil’s circular grate retort, and the Alberta 

Taciuk Process (ATP) technology. These technologies are discussed in Appendix A. The indirect 

recovery methods mentioned above involve in situ processing to separate the organic and 

inorganic constituents of the oil shale. These processes typically involve the application of high 

temperatures to achieve pyrolysis of the kerogen and allow its in situ recovery. Information from 

the BLM’s ongoing oil shale RD&D projects that involve in situ processes is one possible source 

for defining the potential in situ technologies that may be used in the future. 

 Irrespective of the resource recovery and retorting technologies employed, kerogen 

pyrolysis products are likely to require further processing or upgrading before becoming 

attractive to oil refineries as feedstocks for conventional fuels. Upgrading crude shale oil at 

commercial project sites could consist of any or all of the following steps: separation of 

extraneous materials from the feedstock (e.g., water, suspended solids); separation of the crude 

oil fractions according to boiling points in atmospheric and/or vacuum distillations; coking or 

cracking to thermally decompose large molecules into smaller molecules; chemical treatment 

(e.g., catalytic or thermal hydrocracking, hydrotreating, desulfurization, or hydrogenation); and 

removal of other contaminants. These processes are discussed in Appendix A. 

 This PEIS evaluates the potential impacts of commercial oil shale technologies in three 

primary categories: 

• Surface mining projects with surface retort facilities; 

• Underground mining projects with surface retort facilities; and 

• In situ processing projects. 

 While many hypothetical development scenarios could be constructed for each of these 

three technology categories, it is not possible to project or analyze all of them in this PEIS. 

Instead, the PEIS considers the components of current technologies that could be implemented in 

order to analyze the range of potential impacts that could occur. It is likely that operators would 

consolidate a number of systems, such as power generation facilities, equipment maintenance, 

product storage and load-out facilities, steam and hot water production, water and wastewater 

treatment and recycling, and waste management, to achieve greater efficiencies and economies at 

a given project location. 
Final OSTS PEIS 2-21 

 In this PEIS, the BLM has limited its evaluation of the impacts of surface mining to those 

areas within the most geologically prospective oil shale areas where the overburden ranges in 

thickness from 0 to 500 ft. This limitation was based, in large part, on the assumption that 500 ft 

is about the maximum amount of overburden in which surface mining can occur economically, 

using today’s technologies. As shown in Figure 2.3-1, the areas within the most geologically 

prospective oil shale areas where the overburden is 0 to 500 ft thick are limited to part of the 

Uinta Basin in Utah and parts of the Green River and Washakie Basins in Wyoming. In Utah, 

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

overburden thickness of 0 to 500 ft; all of these lands fall within the Vernal RMP planning area. 

In Wyoming, the corresponding area includes about 380,220 acres within the Green River RMP 

planning area. Within the most geologically prospective oil shale area defined in the Piceance 

Basin in Colorado, the most geologically prospective areas where the overburden is 0 to 500 ft 

thick are very limited, and it would be difficult to assemble a logical mining unit.4 In 

Alternatives 1, 2, and 4, the PEIS considers making land available for lease for surface mining 

only in Utah and Wyoming, in those areas shown in Figure 2.3-1. 

 This PEIS is being developed to analyze the proposed action to amend 10 existing land 

use plans to designate certain public lands as available or not available for future oil shale and tar 

sands leasing. It includes descriptions and analyses not of particular levels of development, but 

of the possible impacts of each of the three primary categories of technology currently under 

consideration and research, so far as this information is available to the BLM at this time. 

Analysis of this information will allow the BLM to determine how best to allocate certain public 

lands where the resources are known to be located as available or not available for application to 

lease in the future. 

 If and when the BLM receives applications to lease oil shale, as well as the additional 

information to make such a decision, the BLM will conduct additional NEPA and other required 

analyses, including consideration of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects; reasonable 

alternatives; and possible mitigation measures appropriate to the anticipated development. On the 

basis of that NEPA analysis to be conducted at the lease stage, the BLM will consider further 

amendment of one or more plans, if necessary, including, but not limited to, the establishment of 

general lease stipulations and BMPs. 

2.3.2 Alternative 1, Oil Shale No Action Alternative, No Change to 2008 Decision 

 Under Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative, no existing land use plans would be 

amended. In 2008, the BLM designated a total of 2,017,714 acres5 available for application for 

 

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

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

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

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

5 This amount includes the total potential RD&D lease acreage of 32,000 acres. 
Final OSTS PEIS 2-22 

commercial oil shale leasing and 430,686 acres6 available for commercial tar sands leasing 

(Figures 2.3.2-1, 2.3.2-2, and 2.3.2-3 for Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming, respectively). 

Table 2.3.2-1 lists the approximate number of acres of BLM-administered lands available for 

application for commercial oil shale leasing under Alternative 1 by state.7

 The lands available for lease under the 2008 land use plan amendment decisions would 

remain available for future leasing consideration under the No-Action Alternative. These public 

lands comprise the most geologically prospective oil shale and tar sands areas administered by 

the BLM, including split estate lands where the federal government owns the mineral rights, but 

excluding lands that are exempted by statute, regulation, or E.O., as described in Section 2.3.3. 

Other exempted lands include the mechanically minable trona area in Wyoming; lands within 

incorporated towns and within city limits; historic trails; the Monument Valley Management 

Area; Management Area 3—the Jack Morrow Hills Planning Area in Wyoming; and community 

expansion areas around Rock Springs and Green River, Wyoming. Split estate lands within the 

Hill Creek Extension of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation would potentially be available for 

leasing. These lands total approximately 57,657 acres. 

 Under the 2008 OSTS ROD (BLM 2008b), which forms the basis for the No Action 

Alternative, ACECs are treated in the following manner. Those ACECs that were closed for 

mineral development would be closed to oil shale/tar sands leasing; those ACECs open for 

mineral development would be open to oil shale/tar sands leasing. With respect to LWC, no 

specific decision was made in the 2008 ROD. Rather, as noted in the 2008 OSTS PEIS, the 

decision as to how to manage these areas is the responsibility of the individual BLM field 

offices. Field offices would apply direction from current RMPs and BLM policy in making 

leasing decisions for oil shale and tar sands resources on LWC utilizing the BLM NEPA and 

planning processes. Similarly, with respect to the management of sage-grouse habitat, the 2008 

ROD made no specific decisions; rather, the 2008 Final OSTS PEIS included a text box 

discussing BLM’s policies and general practices, including specific frequently used mitigation 

measures that might be applied to any development, as warranted by analysis at the lease and/or 

development stage (2008 Final OSTS PEIS, pp. 4-78 to 4-80). More recently, the BLM has 

issued nationwide and state-specific guidance recommending the consideration of certain interim 

management practices to address the appropriate management of sage-grouse habitat in the 

context of land use actions, and this information is presented in a text box in Section 4.8.1 of this 

PEIS. The BLM is currently engaged in a National Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy to 

identify necessary conservation measures and management restrictions for the maintenance and 

recovery of sage-grouse populations, and those interim management practices will remain in 

place until such time as those plan amendments are completed. Under this No Action 

Alternative, as well as all of the other alternatives presented for analysis, field offices would 

need to take this guidance into account and incorporate protective measures in any 

authorizations, as warranted by ecological conditions, and on the basis of environmental 

 

6 In the 2008 OSTS PEIS, the corresponding acreages were estimated as 1,991,222 acres for oil shale and 

431,224 acres for tar sands. These estimates are slightly revised here after recalibrating the geospatial data on 

which they are based for the current analysis. 

7 The maps and acreage estimates were constructed by applying the leasing restrictions discussed in the text to the 

best available geographic information system (GIS) datasets available to the BLM. 
Final OSTS PEIS 2-23 

FIGURE 2.3.2-1 Lands Available for Application for Leasing under Alternative 1 in Colorado 
Final OSTS PEIS 2-24 

FIGURE 2.3.2-2 Lands Available for Application for Leasing under Alternative 1 in Utah 
Final OSTS PEIS 2-25 

FIGURE 2.3.2-3 Lands Available for Application for Leasing under Alternative 1 in Wyoming 
Final OSTS PEIS 2-26 

TABLE 2.3.2-1 Estimated Acres Potentially Available in Each 

State for Application for Leasing for Commercial Oil Shale 

Development under Alternative 1a

State 

BLM-Administered 

Lands 

Split Estate 

Lands Total 

 

Coloradob 307,136 39,473 346,609 

 

Utahc 594,958 75,600 670,558 

 

Wyoming 992,824 7,750 1,000,574 

 

Total for Alternative 1 1,894,918 122,823 2,017,741 

a Totals may not be exact because of rounding. These estimates were 

derived from GIS data compiled for the PEIS. 

b Alternative 1 acreage is reduced by 13,308 acres compared to that in 

the 2008 OSTS PEIS due to removal of lands in NOSR 1 and NOSR 3 

in Colorado. See Section 2.3.3 for further explanation. 

c The split estate lands in Utah include 57,657 acres of split estate lands 

within the Hill Creek Extension of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation 

on which the surface rights are owned by the Ute Indian Tribe. 

analysis. As such, it is likely that not all the areas that are currently classified as open for 

application for potential future leasing under this alternative would be leased and/or developed. 

See the discussion under Alternative 4 for examples of what this might look like under different 

protective scenarios. 

 As shown in Figure 2.3.2-2, split estate lands within the Hill Creek Extension of the 

Uintah and Ouray Reservation are included in the lands proposed to be available for leasing 

under Alternative 1. These lands total 57,657 acres. 

 In addition, as discussed in Section 2.3.1, commercial leases for surface mining projects 

would be allowed only on those lands in Utah and Wyoming where the overburden is 0 to 500 ft 

thick. In Utah, under Alternative 1, lands available for application for leasing for surface mining 

projects total about 85,640 acres in the Vernal RMP planning area. In Wyoming, under 

Alternative 1, these lands total about 248,000 acres in the Green River RMP planning area. 

 Under the terms of the eight existing RD&D leases, the federal government has a 

commitment to grant the RD&D lessees leases for commercial development within the PRLAs, 

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

PRLAs would be available for issuance of commercial leases to the current RD&D lessees, 

subject to lease requirements. The federal government is not under an obligation to grant leases 

for commercial development within the existing RD&D lease areas to any other applicants; 

however, under this alternative, if an existing RD&D leaseholder relinquishes its lease, the area 

would be available for consideration for future leasing. 
Final OSTS PEIS 2-27 

 The eight RD&D leases that have been issued contain terms that allow development of 

the original leases and could allow development of the associated PRLAs, totaling 32,000 acres. 

A summary of the key lease terms regarding the PRLAs is provided in Section 1.4.1. For 

purposes of analysis and comparison, under Alternative 1, it is assumed that each of the leases 

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

utilize the whole PRLA leased area. Where the RD&D leases overlay lands classified for open 

pit (surface), underground, or multimineral development, it is assumed that only the technologies 

being tested on the individual leases will be utilized in the development. Under this alternative, if 

an individual RD&D lease holder relinquishes its lease, the area may be leased to another 

operator consistent with the decisions in the RMP existing at the time of application. 

 Table 2.3.2-2 provides a summary of the activities and constraints assumed to occur 

under Alternative 1. 

2.3.3 Commercial Oil Shale Program Land Allocation Alternatives 

 This PEIS analyzes three programmatic land allocation action alternatives in addition to 

the No Action Alternative. Under each new allocation alternative, 8 land use plans would be 

amended to (1) identify the most geologically prospective oil shale resources within each 

planning unit, (2) designate lands within these most geologically prospective areas as available 

or not available for application for commercial oil shale and tar sands leasing, and (3) identify 

any technology restrictions. As noted in Chapter 1, the following decisions from the 2008 OSTS 

PEIS ROD will be carried forward through this planning process and would be applicable 

regardless of the alternative eventually selected for adoption: the requirement for future NEPA, 

ESA, and other applicable analyses and consultation activities to occur prior to any decision to 

lease and/or develop oil shale and tar sands resources; and the specific decision that the BLM 

will consider and give priority to the use of land exchanges to facilitate commercial oil shale 

development pursuant to Section 369(n) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Table 2.3.2-2 

compares the three alternatives. The plans that would be amended under these alternatives 

include the following: 

• Colorado 

 Glenwood Springs RMP (BLM 1988, as amended by the 2006 Roan 

Plateau Plan Amendment [BLM 2006b, 2007a, 2008c]) 

 Grand Junction RMP (BLM 1987) 

 White River RMP (BLM 1997b, as amended by the 2006 Roan Plateau 

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

• Utah 

 Price RMP (BLM 2008e) 

 Vernal RMP (BLM 2008g) 

• Wyoming 

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

Coordinated Activity Plan [BLM 2006a]) 
TABLE 2.3.2-2 Summary of Activities and Conditions Assumed for Each of the Oil Shale Alternatives Condition Alternative 1 (No Action) Alternative 2 (Conservation Focus) Alternative 3 (Research Lands Focus) 

(M

Land use plans amended No land use plans in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming will be amended. 8 land use plans in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming will be amended. Same as Alternative 2. Same Potential area available for application for leasing (RD&D and commercial leases) 2,017,741 acres would be made available for application for commercial lease: Colorado, 346,609 acres Utah, 670,558 acres Wyoming, 1,000,574 acres Under this alternative, the 32,000 acres included in the existing RD&D leases will be available for 

future leasing if the current leaseholders relinquish their existing leases. 

676,967 acres would be made available for application for commercial lease:  Colorado, 26,259 acres  Utah, 357,409 acres  Wyoming, 293,299 acres Under this alternative, of the 32,000 acres included in the existing RD&D leases, if current leaseholders relinquish their leases, only 7,166 acres within the current RD&D lease areas would be available for future leasing. 

32,640 acres would be available for application for commercial lease. This acreage is derived from the seven current RD&D leases in Colorado and one current RD&D lease in Utah and one potential new lease in Utah. Under this alternative, these lands would remain open, regardless of the identity of the lessee. 

1,384

would applic Col 34

 Uta 66 Wy 96Unde32,00existiavailacurrentheir 

Technologies considered 

In situ processes. Underground mining with surface retort. Surface mining with surface retort (only in Utah and Wyoming in areas where the overburden is 0 to 500 ft thick). 

Same as Alternative 1. Same as Alternative 1. Same 
TABLE 2.3.2-2 (Cont.) Condition Alternative 1 (No Action) Alternative 2 (Conservation Focus) Alternative 3 (Research Lands Focus) 

(M

Lands excluded from commercial leasing • Wilderness Areas, WSAs, and other areas that are part of the NLCS. • ACECs existing as of the signing of the 2008 OSTS ROD that are currently closed to mineral development. • The MMTA in Wyoming. • Segments of rivers determined to be eligible or suitable for WSR status by virtue of an 

appropriate WSR inventory or RMP decision.

• Historic trails.

• Monument Valley Management 

Area in Wyoming.

• Management Area 3, Jack 

Morrow Hills Planning Area in Wyoming.

• Incorporated town and city 

limits.

• NOSRs 1 and 3 in Colorado.

Same as Alternative 1 plus: • All areas that the BLM has 

identified or may identify as a result of inventories conducted during this planning process, as lands containing wilderness characteristics.

• The whole of Adobe Town 

“Very Rare or Uncommon Area.”

• Core or priority sage-grouse 

habitat, as defined by such guidance that the BLM or DOI might issue, except in Wyoming.

• All ACECs analyzed in the 

2008 OSTS PEIS plus additional ACEC acreages as a result of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming planning efforts recently completed, as well as areas under consideration for designation as ACECs under current planning processes.

• All areas identified as excluded 

in Alternative C of the 2008 OSTS PEIS (Section 2.3.3.1).

All lands will be excluded from application for lease except lands within eight current and one potential new RD&D leases. 

Same 

• T

“VA

• A

2ada coanefundcu
TABLE 2.3.2-2 (Cont.) Condition Alternative 1 (No Action) Alternative 2 (Conservation Focus) Alternative 3 (Research Lands Focus) 

(M

Regulatory and operational constraints All commercial development would be conducted in compliance with existing federal, state, and local regulatory requirements and established BLM policies. Same as Alternative 1. Same as Alternative 1. Same 

Additional NEPA requirements Additional NEPA analysis would be required before any leases for commercial development can be issued. Site-specific NEPA analysis also would be conducted during review and approval of project plans of development. Same as Alternative 1. Same as Alternative 1. Same 

Abbreviations: ACEC = Area of Critical Environmental Concern; BLM = Bureau of Land Management; DOI = U.S. Department of the Interior; MM

Mineable Trona Area; NLCS = National Landscape Conservation System; NEPA = National Environmental Policy Act; NOSR = Naval Oil Shale Rand tar sands; RD&D = research, development, and demonstration; WSA = Wilderness Study Area. 

a This range corresponds to 75% protection of LWC and sage-grouse core and priority habitat at the low end to no protection at the high end. 
Final OSTS PEIS 2-31 

 Kemmerer RMP (BLM 2010) 

 Rawlins RMP (BLM 2008h) 

 The potential impacts from oil shale development and the possible mitigation measures 

discussed in the Chapter 4 impact analyses could be considered, as appropriate, during the future 

lease and project-specific NEPA analyses that would be required prior to leasing and/or 

development under all of the alternatives. 

 In all three allocation action alternatives, the BLM recognized that the eight existing 

RD&D leases contain terms and conditions that could allow commercial development of the 

original leases and the associated PRLAs totaling 32,000 acres. A summary of the key lease 

terms and conditions regarding the PRLAs is provided in Section 1.4.1. For purposes of analysis 

and comparison, under all three allocation alternatives, it is assumed that each of the leases could 

reach commercial production utilizing the technologies being tested on the leases, and utilizing 

up to the entire leased area. If an initial RD&D lease holder relinquishes its lease, different 

acreages within the existing RD&D and PRLA lease areas would be available for future leasing 

under each alternative as noted in Table 2.3.2-2 above and as described in the discussion below. 

 In addition, in all three allocation alternatives, new RD&D leases could be issued in any 

areas opened to commercial oil shale leasing. New RD&D projects might precede commercial 

oil shale leasing or might be conducted contemporaneously with commercial leasing and 

operations. Impacts from new RD&D projects are anticipated to be qualitatively similar but 

smaller in scale than those of commercial projects, at least until any RD&D lease might be 

converted to a commercial oil shale lease and expanded to include preference right acreage. 

Additional NEPA analysis would be required prior to issuance of any RD&D lease and prior to 

conversion of an RD&D lease to a commercial oil shale lease and expansion into a PRLA. 

 As discussed in Section 1.2, the BLM has determined that certain lands within the most 

geologically prospective oil shale resource areas must be excluded from commercial leasing, 

under all alternatives, to comply with existing laws and regulations, E.O.s, land use plan 

designations, and other administrative designations or withdrawals. As a result, commercial 

leasing is excluded from areas that are part of the BLM-administered NLCS, including 

designated Wilderness Areas, WSAs, National Monuments, NCAs, WSRs, National Historic 

Landmarks, and National Historic and Scenic Trails; existing ACECs that are currently closed 

to mineral development; and lands within incorporated town and city limits. This includes the 

NOSR 1 and 3 lands that were erroneously identified as open under the 2008 OSTS PEIS 

(BLM 2008a). 

 Oil shale deposits, generally, were originally withdrawn in 1930 (E.O. 5327, 

“Withdrawal of Public Oil-Shale Deposits, and Lands Containing Same for Investigation, 

Examination, and Classification” [U.S. President 1930]) by President Herbert Hoover, subject to 

valid existing rights. The E.O. temporarily withdrew the deposits of oil shale and lands 

containing such deposits owned by the United States from lease or other disposal, in order to 

protect the oil shale resource, pending classification under the applicable public land laws. Oil 

shale was later determined to be leasable in 1954 (retroactive to 1920). A later withdrawal order 

issued in 1968 (Public Land Order 4522) added to the protection of oil shale on these same lands, 

permanently withdrawing them from appropriation under the mining law and from sodium 
Final OSTS PEIS 2-32 

leasing, unless it could be shown that sodium mining would not cause significant damage to oil 

shale beds. 

 Section 204 of FLPMA requires the BLM to review existing withdrawals to determine 

whether they are still needed for their original purpose. Since oil shale and associated minerals 

(nahcolite, sodium, and dawsonite) have been determined to be leasable and current policy and 

procedures provide for adequate protection of the oil shale resource, the oil shale withdrawals 

are no longer needed to administer public lands. Therefore, as these oil shale withdrawal orders 

have, over time, been recognized as being no longer needed, they have been revoked in part, 

on several occasions, lifting the withdrawals from most public lands. NOSRs 1 and 3 are an 

exception to this general trend. Congress transferred jurisdiction over these lands from DOE to 

the BLM in the 1997 Transfer Act. The NOSRs were originally set aside for national security 

purposes (this was after the turn of the century when the Navy turned from coal-fired to oil-fired 

vessels), and the statutes under which they were managed by DOE reflected this purpose. In the 

1997 Transfer Act, in recognition that national defense needs no longer warranted such interest 

in oil shale (see P L. 105-85, codified as amended at 10 USC 7439), Congress expressed the need 

to dispose of the property in a way that benefitted the taxpayers, and provided for the transfer of 

NOSRs 1 and 3 to management by the BLM. However, the Transfer Act did not, itself, revoke 

the original withdrawal, and only specifies that the BLM should lease resources subject to the 

Act, “for the purpose of exploration for, and development and production of, petroleum (other 

than in the form of oil shale) located on or in public domain lands in Oil Shale Reserves 

numbered 1 and 3.” Nor has the Secretary of the Interior subsequently revoked the withdrawal 

pursuant to Section 204 of FLPMA. Therefore, the withdrawal is still in effect on NOSRs 1 and 

3, and these lands are closed and not available for future opportunity to lease for the 

development of oil shale resources under all alternatives, including the No Action Alternative. 

The 2008 OSTS PEIS (BLM 2008a) did not include a NEPA analysis to open these lands for 

future oil shale leasing; rather, it did not specifically state that they were excluded from future oil 

shale leasing. In addition, the map of the preferred alternative in Colorado incorrectly showed 

them as open. NOSRs 1 and 3 total 56,238 acres. 

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

available for future opportunity to lease for commercial development of oil shale resources under 

all allocation action alternatives. These additional areas include the following: 

• Mechanically Mineable Trona Area (MMTA). This area, which is located in 

the Green River Basin in Wyoming, falls within a portion of the Known 

Sodium Leasing Area (KSLA) that encompasses the world’s largest known 

trona deposits.8 Trona leases have been issued within this area, and production 

occurs from a number of underground mines. The BLM has determined that 

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

factors exist to allow development of the oil shale resource without 

jeopardizing the safe operation of underground trona mines. 

 

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

sodium tripolyphosphate, and chemical caustic soda. 
Final OSTS PEIS 2-33 

• Segments of rivers that the BLM has determined to be potentially eligible for 

WSR status by virtue of a WSR inventory but that have not yet been reviewed 

for potential suitability, and river segments that have been determined to be 

suitable for potential WSR designation in a BLM RMP. These river segments 

and a corridor extending at least 0.25 mi from the high water mark on either 

side of these segments would be excluded from commercial leasing (see 

footnote 3 in Section 2.2.3 for more information on this restriction). 

• Historic trails. Congressionally designated National Scenic and Historic 

Trails (NTSA, P.L. 90-543, as amended) and trails recommended as suitable 

for congressional designation through a congressionally authorized National 

Trail Feasibility Study or such qualifying trails identified as additional routes 

in law will be excluded from potential future oil shale and tar sands leasing 

and development. To prevent substantial interference with the nature and 

purposes of designated National Scenic and Historic Trails, and to make 

efforts to avoid activities incompatible with trail purposes (NTSA 

Section 7(c)), National Trail management corridors established through the 

land use planning process are considered exclusion areas. In addition, as a 

protective measure for purposes of this oil shale planning initiative, regardless 

of the specific provisions of the applicable RMP regarding other allowable 

activities, a corridor extending at least 0.25 mi on either side of the trail 

would be excluded from commercial oil shale leasing. It is anticipated that 

appropriate inventories of trail resources will be conducted to inform the 

appropriate NEPA and other environmental reviews prior to any leasing 

and/or development decisions for those trails where a corridor has not yet 

been established, to determine the area of potential impact to protect 

resources, qualities, values, and associated settings, and primary use or uses of 

the trails within the viewshed. There is no established minimum or maximum 

limit on the size of the area of possible adverse impact, which will be 

determined through the results of the inventory, in consultation with the trail 

administering agency. Other related program coordination requirements, such 

as for cultural resources, recreation and visitor services, visual resources, or 

NLCS, must be met. On-site or off-site mitigation for any residual adverse 

impact will be applied according to program policy standards and mitigation 

or impact reduction measures identified for related program areas in this 

document. Further guidance is included in the anticipated BLM National 
Final OSTS PEIS 2-34 

Trails System manual series and other NLCS-related policy manuals 

(WO-410).9

• Monument Valley Management Area. Oil shale development within this 

management area, which is located in the Rock Springs Field Office area, is 

prohibited in the Green River RMP (BLM 1997a). Specifically, the RMP 

directs that these lands remain withdrawn from oil shale development until a 

comprehensive study of the area has been conducted, including an assessment 

of the potential designation of this area as an ACEC on the basis of the need to 

protect cultural and paleontological resources.

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

the Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan (BLM 2006a), extensive 

restrictions on surface-disturbing activities have been established for Area 3 

within the Jack Morrow Hills Planning Area because of the presence of 

sensitive natural and cultural resources. The portion of Area 3 that overlaps 

with the most geologically prospective oil shale resources in the Green River 

Basin is restricted to No Surface Occupancy (NSO) and has been excluded 

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

• Expansion areas around Rock Springs and Green River, Wyoming. The BLM 

has determined that it will not issue leases within the “expansion areas” 

agreed upon with the cities of Rock Springs and Green River, Wyoming.

• Incorporated town and city limits. The BLM has determined that it will not 

issue leases within incorporated town and city limits.

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

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

considered for application for leasing at a later time but would require consideration in a new 

NEPA analysis and a land use plan amendment before leasing could be authorized. Areas within 

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

leasing in the current PEIS, or environmentally and economically sound proposals employing 

different technologies, could also be considered in the future. 

 

9 For the purposes of analysis in this PEIS, the centerline of trails mapped in the GIS was used to define the 

0.25-mi buffer. National Scenic Trails consist of extended pathways located for recreation opportunities and the 

conservation and enjoyment of the scenic, historic, natural, and cultural qualities of the areas through which they 

pass (NTSA Section 3(a)(2)). National Historic Trails consist of Federal Protection Components and/or highpotential historic sites and high-potential route segments, including original trails or routes of travel, developed 

trail or access points, artifacts, remnants, traces, and the associated settings and primary uses identified and 

protected for public use and enjoyment (NTSA Section 3(a)(3)) and may include associated auto tour routes 

(NTSA Sections 5(b)(A) and 7(c)). National Historic Trails or other types of historic trails may also contain 

properties listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places or as National Historic 

Landmarks. National Historic Trails are protected and identified as required by law (NTSA Section 3(a)(3)), 

through BLM inventory and planning processes. 
Final OSTS PEIS 2-35 

 Leasing would occur pursuant to regulations governing the leasing and development of 

oil shale (73 FR 69469) (Nov. 18, 2008; codified at 43 CFR Parts 3900-3930). While the BLM is 

in the process of considering amendments to this rule, this PEIS does not depend on any 

particular provision of the rule but anticipates that decisions regarding leasing and approval of 

plans of development will be informed by appropriate analysis documents as required by NEPA 

and other applicable authorities. 

 In general, however, under the oil shale regulations, the process for authorizing oil shale 

leasing and development would proceed as follows. The BLM would issue a call for applications 

for commercial leases that may be restricted to certain areas. In response, companies would be 

required to identify the specific lands that they are interested in as part of their lease application 

package. It is also possible that the BLM would identify specific tracts to be leased in the call for 

applications. The proposed process would require that NEPA analyses be conducted prior to 

lease issuance. Information collected as part of the lease application process would be 

incorporated into the NEPA analysis. Applicants would be required to identify key information 

regarding aspects of the proposed development needed to support a complete NEPA review 

(e.g., technologies to be employed, level of planned development, anticipated off-site impacts, 

and strategies to comply with regulatory requirements). During that NEPA review, the BLM 

would identify and establish appropriate lease stipulations to mitigate anticipated impacts. In 

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

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

appropriate mitigation measures as needed to control impacts beyond those established in the 

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

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

operational data are provided by the applicant(s). Under Alternatives 2(b) and 4(b), where 

RD&D leasing will be required prior to a lessee obtaining a commercial lease, the BLM is still in 

the process of working out the exact details of the process, but expects at this point that the 

RD&D leasing process will be detailed in the Federal Register notice announcing the Request 

for Nomination. 

 Under all allocation action alternatives, the BLM would require that the operator conduct 

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

requirements and established BLM policies, as generally described in Section 2.2 and 

Appendix D. This compliance would include, as appropriate, obtaining and complying with all 

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

and operating within the permit constraints. In addition, the operator would have to conduct 

any commercial development consistent with any constraints that emerged from the BLM’s 

completion of consultation, as appropriate, with the USFWS under Section 7 of the ESA in 

connection with authorization of any leasing/development project(s), and its completion of 

consultation with State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPOs), Tribal Historic Preservation 

Officers, and other consulting parties under Section 106 of the NHPA (P.L. 89-665) in 

connection with authorization of any leasing/development project(s). The operator would have 

to conduct any commercial development in compliance with any other relevant and applicable 

requirements, as well. Compliance-related conditions would be developed on a project-byproject basis during site-specific analyses. 
Final OSTS PEIS 2-36 

 Under all allocation action oil shale alternatives, in Colorado, lands within the 

Multimineral Zone identified in the White River RMP (BLM 1997b) would be made available 

for application for commercial lease only if the applicant can demonstrate that it would use 

technologies that allow recovery of oil shale resources without preventing the recovery of or 

otherwise destroying other minerals (i.e., nahcolite and dawsonite). 

2.3.3.1 Alternative 2, Oil Shale Conservation Focus (Alternative 2[a]), with 

RD&D First Requirement (Alternative 2[b]) (Proposed Plan—

see Section 2.5) 

 Under this alternative, which is also highlighted in the discussion of the Proposed Plan 

Amendment, in Section 2.5), 8 land use plans in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming would be 

amended to designate 676,967 acres as available for future commercial oil shale leasing.10 In 

addition to the areas excluded in Alternatives 1through 4, this alternative would exclude from 

commercial oil shale leasing the following categories or groups of categories of public lands 

and/or their resource values that may warrant protection from potential oil shale leasing and 

development:11

1. All areas that the BLM has identified or may identify as a result of inventories 

conducted during this planning process, as LWC; 

2. The whole of the Adobe Town “Very Rare or Uncommon” area, as designated 

by the Wyoming Environment Quality Council on April 10, 2008 

(180,910 acres total; 167,517 acres of public land, of which 10,920 acres are 

already a BLM WSA); 

3. Core or priority sage-grouse habitat, as defined by such guidance as the BLM 

or the DOI may issue (except in Wyoming—see discussion below—and in 

Section 2.5, Proposed Plan Amendment); 

4. All ACECs located within the areas analyzed in the 2008 OSTS PEIS 

(76,666 acres in existing ACECs in the 2008 OSTS PEIS plus additional 

 

10 In a February 15, 2011, settlement of a lawsuit brought by several environmental advocacy groups challenging 

the 2008 OSTS PEIS and ROD, the DOI and BLM agreed to analyze an alternative that considers excluding 

from oil shale/tar sands leasing and development all lands containing the resource types listed, as well as an 

alternative that considers excluding from oil shale/tar sands leasing and development some portion of the lands 

containing the resource types listed. The latter alternative is represented by Alternative 4, the Moderate 

Development Alternative, described below. 

11 As noted below, however, because Alternative 2 has been modified for the purposes of the Proposed Plan 

Amendment, to include as open those lands encompassed by the remaining pending RD&D lease, these 

exclusions would not apply to those specific acres. 
Final OSTS PEIS 2-37 

ACEC acreages as a result of Utah and Wyoming planning efforts recently 

completed)12,

13; and 

5. All areas identified as excluded from commercial oil shale and tar sands 

leasing in Alternative C of the September 2008 OSTS PEIS (Alternative C 

made 830,296 acres available for potential commercial oil shale leasing and 

229,038 acres available for potential commercial tar sands leasing). 

 It is important to note that unlike the states of Colorado and Wyoming, the state of Utah 

has not yet completed the process of identifying core or priority sage-grouse habitat. The 

information available from Utah is the map of occupied habitat, and this map was used in the 

development of the alternatives in the Draft PEIS, specifically the Preferred Alternative, 

Alternative 2(b), under which all such lands are excluded from oil shale/tar sands leasing and 

development. This map was updated by the state of Utah in September 2011, but still shows 

occupied habitat. For Utah, the state’s occupied habitat map represents the best source of 

information regarding sage-grouse habitat, and is currently being used in the scoping process for 

the National Sage-Grouse Plan Amendment initiative (NOI; Dec. 9, 2011). Therefore, although 

the occupied habitat map almost certainly represents a larger area than will eventually be 

designated by the state of Utah as core or priority habitat, the final PEIS will continue to rely on 

the 2011 map as a proxy for core or priority sage-grouse habitat. This means that the 2012 oil 

shale/tar sands ROD is likely to be inconsistent with the results of the state process in Utah 

regarding sage-grouse habitat protection. However, based on review of the December 9, 2011, 

NOI for the two National Sage-Grouse Plan Amendments, the BLM believes it would be a fairly 

straightforward process to incorporate any desired changes to the oil shale/tar sands allocation 

decisions in Utah in the sage-grouse planning initiative, or through a subsequent independent 

plan amendment process. 

RD&D First Requirement (Alternative 2[b]). Under this alternative, the lands open for 

future leasing consideration would be the same as those in Alternative 2(a), but only for RD&D 

leases. The BLM would issue a commercial lease only when a lessee satisfies the conditions of 

its RD&D lease and the regulations at 43 CFR Part 3926 for conversion to a commercial lease. 

The preference right acreage, if any, which would be included in the converted lease, would be 

specified in the RD&D lease. 

 The environmental impacts of Alternative 2(b) would be analytically indistinguishable 

from those of Alternative 2(a). Only the method of obtaining a lease would be different. 

Accordingly, the analysis in this PEIS of Alternative 2 applies fully and equally to both 

alternatives. To the extent there may be differences in environmental consequences between 

Alternative 2(a) and 2(b), these would be related to the timing of the commencement of impacts, 

 

12 This would only include those ACECs that were formally designated in those plans. ACECs that were proposed, 

but not formally designated in the applicable plans undergoing revision/amendment at that time would not be 

considered for closure. 

13 With respect to any new potential ACECs, the Rock Springs Field Office has not yet completed its ACEC report. 

Any decisions regarding designation and management of ACECs will be made by the Rock Springs Field Office 

through its land use planning process. 
Final OSTS PEIS 2-38 

as well as, possibly, length of disturbance. However, these issues are best addressed in the lease 

and/or project-specific analysis. 

 The benefits of Alternative 2(b) would include facilitating a robust RD&D program. It 

would also avoid allowing a few companies to tie up large areas with speculative commercial 

leases. Thus it would promote access by innovative small companies to the federal oil shale 

resource for RD&D. 

 In the event that a commercially viable technology is demonstrated and becomes 

widely available in the near future, it is possible that Alternative 2(b) could result in delaying 

commercial leasing on federal lands. If that possibility, however speculative at the present, were 

to occur, the pertinent RMPs could be amended contemporaneously with review of proposed 

commercial leases. The oil shale leasing and management regulations at 43 CFR Part 3900 

would not be affected by the selection of any alternative analyzed in this PEIS, and thus would 

remain available for future decisions concerning commercial leasing. 

 As discussed in more detail in Section 2.5, in the areas open under Alternative 2(b), the 

Secretary may issue a commercial lease to an entity that has succeeded in converting an RD&D 

lease to a commercial lease (or who holds the license to a technology which has converted from 

an RD&D lease to a commercial lease) for a tract on other lands open under Alternative 2(b). In 

these circumstances, such commercial lessee would not have to begin with another RD&D lease 

on the new leasehold. In addition, the Secretary may issue a commercial lease on the lands open 

under Alternative 2(b) where the potential commercial lessee intends to employ technology that 

has been proven commercially viable on nonfederal lands in the study area (i.e., in the Green 

River formation basins in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming) and that the Secretary determines to be 

environmentally acceptable. 

 Lands that fall under items 1 through 4, above, in and around the most geologically 

prospective oil shale areas in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming are shown in Figures 2.3.3-1, 

2.3.3-2, and 2.3.3-3, respectively. The process of updating LWC inventories is described in 

Section 2.2.3; inventory updates were completed in the summer of 2011. The Adobe Town 

“Very Rare or Uncommon” area is shown in Figure 2.3.3-3 in the eastern portion of the 

Washakie Basin in Wyoming. The types of areas and resources excluded in item 5 above, that 

were included in Alternative C of the 2008 OSTS PEIS, are described in Table 2.3.3-1. 

 Alternative 2 has been adjusted with respect to sage-grouse provisions, as explained 

further in Section 2.5. With respect to sage-grouse protections, Wyoming’s Greater Sage-Grouse 

Core Area Protection strategy, under Wyoming E.O. 2011-5, has been recognized by the 

USFWS as an adequate regulatory mechanism for the conservation of this species and has been 

adopted by the BLM Wyoming State Office. Wyoming E.O. 2011-5 does not generally preclude 

mineral development; rather, it establishes conditions designed to maintain and enhance greater 

sage-grouse habitat, including mitigation measures. Thus, to be consistent with Wyoming’s 

greater sage-grouse strategy, sage-grouse core or priority habitat is not one of the categories used 

to identify lands excluded from leasing under Alternative 2/the Proposed Plan Amendment in 

Wyoming (see Figure 2.3.3-3). Such areas would be open to application for leasing under 
Final OSTS PEIS 2-39 

FIGURE 2.3.3-1 Land Categories Used as Criteria To Identify Lands Open for Application for 

Oil Shale Leasing under Alternative 2 (and Proposed Plan Amendment) in Colorado 
Final OSTS PEIS 2-40 

FIGURE 2.3.3-2 Land Categories Used as Criteria To Identify Lands Open for Application for 

Oil Shale Leasing under Alternative 2 (and Proposed Plan Amendment) in Utah 
Final OSTS PEIS 2-41 

FIGURE 2.3.3-3 Land Categories Used as Criteria To Identify Lands Open for Application for 

Oil Shale Leasing under Alternative 2 (and Proposed Plan Amendment) in Wyoming 
Final OSTS PEIS 2-42 

TABLE 2.3.3-1 Resources Covered by Stipulations and Restrictions in Place for 

Oil and Gas Leasing in Each State That Were Used To Identify Lands Not Available 

for Application for Leasing under Alternative C of the 2008 OSTS PEIS 

 

Colorado 

Slopes and erosive/critical soils 

Riparian zones and wetlands 

Sage-grouse leks and nesting habitat 

Raptor nests, roosts, fledgling habitat, and concentration areas 

Wildlife habitata

Colorado River cutthroat trout habitat 

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

Sensitive plants and remnant vegetation associations 

Wild horses and wild horse management areas 

Visual Resource Management (VRM) Class II areas 

ACECs 

Paleontological and cultural resources 

 

Utah 

Slopes and erosive critical soils 

Floodplains, watersheds, and live water 

Sage-grouse leks and nesting habitat 

Raptor nests and habitat 

Wildlife habitata

Black-footed ferret habitat 

Special status plants 

ACECs 

Paleontological resources 

Otherb

 

Wyoming 

Slopes and fragile/erosive soil 

Sage-grouse and greater sage-grouse leks and nesting habitat 

Raptor nests and concentration areas 

Wildlife habitata

Sensitive species 

VRM Class I and II areas 

Historic trails 

ACECs 

Cultural resources 

Otherb

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

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

wildlife. 

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

restricted from leasing for reasons not specified in the GIS data. 
Final OSTS PEIS 2-43 

Alternative 2/the Proposed Plan Amendment, if not otherwise excluded, and managed consistent 

with Wyoming’s Greater Sage-Grouse Core Area Protection strategy. 

 Lands available for application for oil shale leasing within the most geologically 

prospective area under Alternative 2 in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming are shown in 

Figures 2.3.3-4, 2.3.3-5, and 2.3.3-6, respectively. Table 2.3.3-2 lists by state the approximate 

number of acres of BLM-administered land available for application for leasing under 

Alternative 2. 

 Under the terms of the eight existing RD&D leases, the federal government has a 

commitment to grant the RD&D lessees leases for commercial development within the PRLAs, 

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

PRLAs would be available for issuance of commercial leases to the current RD&D lessees, 

subject to lease requirements. However, under this alternative, of the 32,000 acres included in the 

existing RD&D leases, if current leaseholders relinquish their leases or the leases are terminated, 

only 7,166 acres within the current RD&D lease areas then would be available for future leasing 

(see Figures 2.3.3-4 and 2.3.3-5). An estimated 21,906 acres in portions of five of the seven 

PRLAs for the Colorado RD&D leases and 867 acres in the PRLA for the lone RD&D lease in 

Utah are outside the Alternative 2 footprint and would not be available for application for 

subsequent commercial leasing. These include portions of the areas associated with the Chevron, 

AMSO, ExxonMobil, Natural Soda, Shell Site 2, and Enefit RD&D projects. For the other 

two Colorado RD&D projects, Shell Sites 1 and 3, none of the PRLAs coincide with the area 

identified as available for application for subsequent commercial leasing. 

 The BLM is still considering one of the second-round RD&D lease applications 

(Aurasource in Utah) as a potential lease. In response to comments received on the Draft PEIS, 

and so as not to pre-determine that decision, Alternative 2(a) and sub-alternative 2(b) have been 

revised in the Proposed Plan Amendment (Section 2.5) to incorporate that element of 

Alternative 3 whereby the lands encompassed by the potential RD&D lease, regardless of the 

exclusion factors listed above, would be available for potential oil shale leasing; however, as 

with the other areas that are available for potential oil shale leasing under this alternative, these 

areas are also open to RD&D first only. 

 As described in Section 2.3.1, applications for commercial leases for surface mining 

projects would be allowed only on those lands in Utah and Wyoming where the overburden is 

0 to 500 ft thick. In Utah, under Alternative 2, lands available for application for leasing for 

surface mining projects total about 85,640 acres in the Vernal RMP planning area. In Wyoming, 

under Alternative 2, these lands total about 248,000 acres in the Green River RMP planning area. 

2.3.3.2 Alternative 3, Oil Shale Research Lands Focus (RD&D with PRLA Only) 

 Several comments were received during the public scoping process that suggested that 

the BLM should not move forward to establish commercial leasing programs for oil shale or tar 

sands development on public lands. The variety of concerns cited as reasons for not establishing 

commercial programs included (1) the sensitivity of specific resources within the three-state 
Final OSTS PEIS 2-44 

FIGURE 2.3.3-4 Lands Available for Application for Oil Shale Leasing under Alternative 2 (and 

Proposed Plan Amendment) in Colorado 
Final OSTS PEIS 2-45 

FIGURE 2.3.3-5 Lands Available for Application for Oil Shale Leasing under Alternative 2 (and 

Proposed Plan Amendment) in Utah 
Final OSTS PEIS 2-46 

FIGURE 2.3.3-6 Lands Available for Application for Oil Shale Leasing under Alternative 2 

(and Proposed Plan Amendment) in Wyoming 
Final OSTS PEIS 2-47 

TABLE 2.3.3-2 Estimated Acres Potentially Available in Each 

State for Application for Leasing for Commercial Oil Shale 

Development under Alternative 2 (and Proposed Plan 

Amendment)a

State 

BLM-Administered 

Lands 

Split Estate 

Lands Total 

 

Colorado 22,471 3,789 26,259 

 

Utah 293,692 63,717 357,409 

 

Wyoming 291,222 2,077 293,299 

 

Total for Alternative 2 607,385 69,582 676,967 

a Totals may not be exact because of rounding. These estimates were 

derived from GIS data compiled for the PEIS analyses. 

study area, such as LWC, visual resources, ecological resources, and cultural resources; (2) the 

lack of definitive information about the technologies that will be employed in commercial 

operations; (3) the need for the nation to focus on alternative sources of energy, such as 

renewable resources; and (4) in the case of oil shale, the potential recurrence of adverse 

socioeconomic impacts resulting from a possible boom or bust cycle of development. Under this 

Research Lands Focus Alternative, developed in consideration of these comments, 8 land use 

plans would be amended such that public lands for commercial leasing would be available only 

where there were existing RD&D leases at the time the ROD for the 2012 Final OSTS PEIS is 

signed. The eight current RD&D leases contain terms and conditions that could allow 

commercial development of the original leases and the associated PRLA totaling 32,000 acres. 

One potential RD&D lease in Utah is still under consideration. The maximum acreage of this 

lease, if approved, would be 640 acres, bringing the total acreage to 32,640 acres available for 

potential oil shale leasing under this alternative. 

 Lands included under Alternative 3, the seven current RD&D oil shale leases with 

PRLA lands in Colorado and the current RD&D lease with PRLA land in Utah, are shown in the 

context of the study area in Figure 2.3.3-4 and Figure 2.3.3-5, respectively. Figure 2.3.3-7 shows 

the seven existing RD&D lease areas in Colorado; the ExxonMobil and Natural Soda RD&D 

leases were approved in 2012 in Utah in greater detail. Figure 2.3.3-8 shows the one existing and 

one potential new RD&D oil shale lease area, Aurasource. 

2.3.3.3 Alternative 4, Oil Shale Moderate Development (2008 OSTS PEIS ROD 

Minus Adobe Town and ACECs) (Alternative 4[a]), with RD&D First 

Requirement (Alternative 4[b]) 

 Under Alternative 4, the BLM would amend 8 land use plans in Colorado, Utah, 

and Wyoming to designate between 1,384,237 and 1,968,079 acres as available for future 
FIGURE 2.3.3-7 Seven Existing RD&D Leases in Colorado 
FIGURE 2.3.3-8 Potential New RD&D Oil Shale Lease (Aurasource) in Utah 
Final OSTS PEIS 2-50 

consideration for leasing for commercial oil shale leasing.14 This alternative would exclude 

the following from commercial oil shale or tar sands leasing: 

1. The whole of the Adobe Town “Very Rare or Uncommon” area, as designated 

by the Wyoming Environment Quality Council on April 10, 2008 

(180,910 acres total; 167,517 acres of public land, of which 10,920 acres are 

already a BLM WSA). 

2. All ACECs located within the areas analyzed in the 2008 OSTS PEIS 

(76,666 acres in existing ACECs in 2008 OSTS PEIS plus additional ACEC 

acreages as a result of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming planning efforts recently 

completed).15 

RD&D First Requirement (Alternative 4[b]). Under this alternative, the lands open for 

future leasing consideration would be the same as those in Alternative 4(a), but only for RD&D 

leases. The BLM would issue a commercial lease only when a lessee satisfies the conditions of 

its RD&D lease and the regulations at 43 CFR Part 3926 for conversion to a commercial lease. 

The preference right acreage, if any, which would be included in the converted lease, would be 

specified in the RD&D lease. 

 The environmental impacts of Alternative 4(b) would be analytically indistinguishable 

from those of Alternative 4(a). Only the method of obtaining a lease would be different. 

Accordingly, the analysis of Alternative 4 in this PEIS applies fully and equally to both 

alternatives. To the extent there may be differences in environmental consequences between 

Alternatives 4(a) and 4(b), these would be related to the timing of commencement of impacts, as 

well as, possibly, length of disturbance. However, these issues are best addressed in the lease 

and/or project-specific analysis. 

 The benefits of Alternative 4(b) would include facilitating a robust RD&D program. It 

would also avoid allowing a few companies to tie up large areas with speculative commercial 

leases. Thus it would promote access by innovative small companies to the federal oil shale 

resource for RD&D. 

 In the event that a commercially viable technology is demonstrated and becomes 

widely available in the near future, it is possible that Alternative 4(b) could result in delaying 

commercial leasing on federal lands. If that possibility, however speculative at the present, were 

to occur, the pertinent RMPs could be amended contemporaneously with review of proposed 

commercial leases. The oil shale leasing and management regulations at 43 CFR Part 3900 

would not be affected by the selection of any alternative analyzed in this PEIS and thus would 

remain available for future decisions concerning commercial leasing. 

 

14 This alternative satisfies the settlement agreement to exclude some, but not all, lands from the application of oil 

shale and tar sands leasing, in comparison to Alternative 2. 

15 This would only include those ACECs that were formally designated in those plans. ACECs that were proposed 

but not formally designated in the applicable plans undergoing revision/amendment at that time would not be 

considered for closure. 
Final OSTS PEIS 2-51 

 As discussed in more detail in Section 2.5, in the areas open under Alternative 4(b), the 

Secretary may issue a commercial lease to an entity that has succeeded in converting an RD&D 

lease to a commercial lease (or who holds the license to a technology that has converted from an 

RD&D lease to a commercial lease) for a tract on other lands open under Alternative 4(b). In 

these circumstances, the commercial lessee would not have to begin with another RD&D lease 

on the new leasehold. In addition, the Secretary may issue a commercial lease on the lands open 

under Alternative 4(b) where the potential commercial lessee intends to employ technology that 

has proved commercially viable on nonfederal lands in the study area (i.e., in the Green River 

formation basins in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming) and that the Secretary determines to be 

environmentally acceptable. 

 Under Alternative 4, lands that would be available for future consideration for leasing 

would include those BLM-administered lands within the most geologically prospective oil shale 

areas, including split estate lands where the federal government owns the mineral rights. Lands 

available for application for leasing under Alternative 4 are shown in Figures 2.3.3-9, 2.3.3-10, 

and 2.3.3-11. 

 Management of LWC within the most geologically prospective oil shale area in 

Alternative 4 would be managed just as in Alternative 1 and would be the responsibility of the 

individual field offices. Field offices would apply direction from existing BLM guidance in 

making leasing decisions on LWC utilizing the BLM NEPA and planning processes. 

Alternative 4 includes as open for leasing roughly 4,700 acres of formerly eligible WSR 

segments closed to leasing under Alternative 1 that have been determined to be not suitable in 

the appropriate RMP revision. 

 Management of sage-grouse habitat, under Alternative 4, lands would be managed as in 

Alternative 1. No specific decisions regarding core and priority habitat will be made in this PEIS; 

rather, those decisions will be left up to the individual field offices, which would determine the 

management of such areas through the BLM NEPA and planning processes consistent with 

applicable BLM policies. These policies were described in the 2008 OSTS PEIS (pp. 4-78 to 

4-80) and include BLM’s policies and general practices, including specific frequently used 

mitigation measures that might be applied to any proposed commercial oil shale development, as 

warranted by analysis at the lease and/or development stage. The BLM is currently engaged in a 

National Greater Sage-Grouse Planning Strategy to identify necessary conservation measures 

and management restrictions for the maintenance and recovery of sage-grouse populations. As 

part of this sage-grouse planning process in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming, the BLM is 

identifying those areas as open or closed to mineral leasing and development; for areas open to 

leasing, the BLM is identifying major or moderate constraints (management actions) that may be 

required to mitigate impacts on sage-grouse or their habitat. Field offices would need to take this 

planning into account, and incorporate protective measures in any authorizations, as warranted 

by ecological conditions and on the basis of environmental analysis. As such, it is likely that 

not all the areas that are currently open under this alternative for potential future leasing would 

be leased. The maximum acreage developed could be much less than that presented in 

Table 2.3.3-3, as a result of the application of current BLM policy. 
Final OSTS PEIS 2-52 

FIGURE 2.3.3-9 Lands Available for Application for Oil Shale Leasing under Alternative 4 

in Colorado 
Final OSTS PEIS 2-53 

FIGURE 2.3.3-10 Lands Available for Application for Oil Shale Leasing under Alternative 4 

in Utah 
Final OSTS PEIS 2-54 

FIGURE 2.3.3-11 Lands Available for Application for Oil Shale Leasing under Alternative 4 

in Wyoming 
Final OSTS PEIS 2-55 

TABLE 2.3.3-3 Estimated Acres Potentially Available in Each 

State for Application for Leasing for Commercial Oil Shale 

Development under Alternative 4,a Assuming None of the LWC 

and Sage-Grouse Core and Priority Habitat Are Protected 

through NSO or No Lease Stipulations 

State 

BLM-Administered 

Lands 

Split Estate 

Lands Total 

 

Colorado 300,718 39,429 340,147 

 

Utah 583,735 76,751 660,486 

 

Wyoming 959,862 7,584 967,446 

 

Total for Alternative 4 1,844,316 123,763 1,968,079 

a Totals may not be exact because of rounding. These estimates were 

derived from GIS data compiled for the PEIS analyses. This table 

assumes NSO/no lease measures are not applied as mitigation to protect 

LWC or sage-grouse core and priority habitat areas. 

 Depending on what the applicable RMP provides with respect to LWC and core and 

priority sage-grouse habitat, it may be necessary to initiate a plan amendment at the leasing 

and/or development stage to make allocation decisions on an individual RMP basis regarding 

management of these lands with respect to oil shale and tar sands resources. The reason for 

qualifying the amount of acreage available for lease under this alternative is that while areas of 

core and priority sage-grouse and areas of LWC are left open for potential future leasing and 

development of oil shale and tar sands resources, the likelihood of all this acreage as being 

available for further oil shale and tar sands resources leasing and development is low. National 

and state-specific guidance related to sage-grouse management and protection of core and 

priority habitat will likely result in substantially less acreage being available, as will field office 

management decisions related to the protection of LWC. It is difficult to establish disturbance 

amounts at the programmatic level, before more is known regarding the specifics of leasehold 

location and technology to be used. Tables 2.3.3-4 and 2.3.3-5 show what this might look like 

under different protective scenarios. The scenarios are only provided to illustrate this idea, but 

the decisions to protect these amounts are not being made at this time as part of this land use 

plan amendment initiative. These decisions would be made at the field office level as part of 

the NEPA and/or planning analyses completed for leasing and site-specific development. 

 As described in Section 2.3.1, commercial leases for surface mining projects would be 

allowed only in Utah and Wyoming on those lands where the overburden is 0 to 500 ft thick. In 

Utah, under Alternative 4, lands available for application for leasing for surface mining projects 

total about 46,900 acres in the Vernal RMP planning area. In Wyoming, under Alternative 4, 

these lands total about 68,200 acres in the Green River RMP planning area. 
Final OSTS PEIS 2-56 

TABLE 2.3.3-4 Estimated Acres Potentially Available in Each State for Application 

for Leasing for Commercial Oil Shale Development under Alternative 4, Assuming 

75% of the LWC and Sage-Grouse Core and Priority Habitat Is Protected through 

NSO or No Lease Stipulations 

State 

Acres LWC and 

Sage-Grousea

BLM-Administered 

Lands 

Split Estate 

Lands Total 

 

Colorado 75,431 255,704 27,871 283,575 

 

Utah 217,648 429,609 67,641 497,250 

 

Wyoming 485,377 598,067 5,346 603,413 

 

Total for Alternative 4 778,457 1,283,380 100,857 1,384,237 

a Acreage that is identified as either LWC or sage-grouse core or priority habitat, or both, within 

Alternative 4. 

TABLE 2.3.3-5 Estimated Acres Potentially Available in Each State for Application 

for Leasing for Commercial Oil Shale Development under Alternative 4, Assuming 

25% of the LWC and Sage-Grouse Core and Priority Habitat Is Protected through 

NSO or No Lease Stipulations 

State 

Acres LWC and 

Sage-Grousea

BLM-Administered 

Lands 

Split Estate 

Lands Total 

 

Colorado 75,431 285,714 35,576 321,290 

 

Utah 217,648 532,360 73,714 606,074 

 

Wyoming 485,377 839,264 6,837 846,102 

 

Total for Alternative 4 778,457 1,657,338 116,128 1,773,466 

a Acreage that is identified as either LWC or sage-grouse core or priority habitat, or both, within 

Alternative 4. 

 Under the terms of the eight existing RD&D leases, the federal government has a 

commitment to grant the RD&D lessees leases for commercial development within the PRLAs, 

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

PRLAs would be available for issuance of commercial leases to the current RD&D lessees, 

subject to lease requirements. Also under this alternative, the 32,000 acres included in the 

existing RD&D leases and PRLAs lie within the Alternative 4 footprint and will be available 

for future leasing if the current leaseholders relinquish their existing leases or the leases are 

terminated. 
Final OSTS PEIS 2-57 

2.4 TAR SANDS 

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

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

environment, leaving the heavier, less volatile bitumen in place. Because of the very viscous 

nature of the bitumen, tar sands cannot be processed by normal petroleum production 

techniques.16

 More than 50 tar sands deposits occur in Utah. Limited data are available on many of 

these deposits, and most of the known bitumen occurs in just a few of the deposits. The deposits 

that are being evaluated in this PEIS are those classified in the 11 sets of geologic reports 

(minutes) prepared by the USGS in 1980 (USGS 1980a–k) and formalized by Congress in the 

Combined Hydrocarbon Leasing Act of 1981 (P.L. 97-78).17 The 11 STSAs, which define the tar 

sands study area, are shown in Figure 2.4-1 and listed in Table 2.4-1, along with their total size 

in acres and the number of acres of BLM-administered and split estate lands within each STSA. 

These STSAs are considered to be the most geologically prospective areas for tar sands 

development. 

 Although no tar sands development is currently taking place on public lands in Utah, the 

BLM does have a pending application for a tar sands lease. In the mid-1980s and mid-1990s, a 

number of CHLs were issued in the Pariette and P.R. Spring STSAs under the authority of the 

Combined Hydrocarbon Leasing Act (P.L. 97-78). Seventeen of these leases remain in existence. 

Also in the mid-1980s, a number of operators holding oil and gas leases within designated 

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

has not been completed; thus, a number of pending conversion applications remain within the 

study area, specifically within the Circle Cliffs, Tar Sand Triangle, and P.R. Spring STSAs.18

The BLM is currently engaged in adjudication of these leases.19 Tar sands deposits outside the 

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

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

gas lease. 

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

conversion leases should they be converted to CHLs. 

 

16 “Tar sands” should be distinguished from the “oil sands” found in Canada. The differences between these two 

resources and the resulting differences in how they might be developed are discussed in Appendix B. 

17 See 30 USC 181, which defines “special tar sands area” as an area designated by the Secretary of the Interior’s 

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

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

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

PEIS. 

19 Decisions in this PEIS and its accompanying ROD regarding the availability of lands within the STSAs for 

future commercial leasing and the constraints under which such future leases would be issued would not affect 

the existing CHLs or any of the pending applications that are converted to CHLs. 
Final OSTS PEIS 2-58 

FIGURE 2.4-1 Special Tar Sand Areas in Utah 
Final OSTS PEIS 2-59 

TABLE 2.4-1 Total Size in Acres of the 11 STSAs and Acres of 

BLM-Administered and Split Estate Lands within Each STSAa,b

STSA Total Size 

Total 

BLM-Administered 

Lands within STSA 

Total Split 

Estate Lands 

within STSA 

 

Argyle Canyon 22,259 1,224 11,869 

Asphalt Ridge 39,151 5,324 128 

Circle Cliffsc 91,303 50,852 6,707 

Hill Creekd 106,795 19,826 36,583

Pariette 22,622 12,336 78 

P.R. Spring 273,922 184,100 7,639 

Raven Ridge 16,533 14,352 16 

San Rafael Swell 130,737 115,665 0 

Sunnyside 157,406 78,676 18,175 

Tar Sand Triangle 155,049 82,208 0 

White Canyon 10,490 8,050 0 

 

Total 1,026,266 572,613 81,196 

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

GIS data compiled for the PEIS analyses. 

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

administers, the subsurface mineral rights, but the surface estate is owned by tribes, 

states, or private parties. 

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

excluded from consideration for being designated as open to application for leasing 

in this PEIS. The BLM-administered lands fall entirely within the GSENM. 

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

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

the surface rights are owned by the Ute Indian Tribe. 

2.4.1 Potential Commercial Tar Sands Development Technologies 

 This section briefly describes the tar sands development technologies that have been 

considered in the scope of the PEIS analyses. Appendix B provides a more detailed discussion of 

potential technologies that may be used over the next 20 years and includes a discussion of oil 

sands development in Canada. Information presented in this section and Appendix B on 

technologies that might be used is taken from the best available published data. Because 

commercial tar sands development is still evolving, many details regarding the specific 

technologies that will be used in the future to produce oil from tar sands are unknown. In the 

absence of complete and definitive information about the technologies that may be deployed, a 

number of assumptions have been made. These assumptions are discussed in Section 5.1. 

 Commercial development of a tar sands resource occurs in three major steps: (1) recovery 

of the bitumen in its natural setting, (2) processing of the bitumen to extract it from the inorganic 
Final OSTS PEIS 2-60 

matrix (largely sand and silt) in which it occurs, and (3) upgrading of the bitumen to produce a 

synthetic crude oil suitable as a feedstock for a conventional refinery. The physical and chemical 

features of the tar sands deposits and other circumstantial factors associated with their deposition 

dictate the most appropriate development schemes. Typical development schemes always 

involve each of the above major steps, although many permutations of these steps are possible 

and many interim steps may also be necessary. 

 Recovery methods can be categorized as either mining activities or in situ processes, 

although some techniques involve a combination of recovery methods. Mining consists of using 

surface or subsurface mining techniques to excavate the tar sands with subsequent recovery of 

the bitumen by washing, flotation, or retorting.20 True in situ methods generally involve either 

heating the tar sands (referred to as in situ combustion) or injecting materials (e.g., steam, hot 

water, gas, or solvents) into them to mobilize the bitumen for recovery. Depending on production 

costs and the price of the synthetic crude produced, surface mining operations are generally 

cost-effective only where the overburden is no more than about 45 m (150 ft) (Meyer 1995). 

In situ processes requiring high pressures are generally considered to require a thick overburden 

of about 150 m (500 ft) to contain the pressure. Between these depths, bitumen must be 

recovered by other means. 

 The choice of recovery method affects which extraction and processing operations are 

used. In mining operations, the mined bitumen must be processed to recover or separate it from 

the inorganic matrix (largely sand, silt, and clay) in which it occurs. Non-mining recovery 

methods produce bitumen mixed with water, steam, other gases, or solvent from which it must be 

separated. If combustion recovery is used, the viscosity of the recovered bitumen may need to be 

reduced prior to further processing. In all cases, the viscosity of the bitumen might need to be 

changed prior to further processing and upgrading (BLM 1984). Depending on the recovery 

method, mining operations may also need to perform similar separations. The recovery processes 

evaluated in this PEIS include those discussed in Appendix B: the hot water process, cold water 

process, solvent extraction process, and thermal recovery processes, including retorting. 

 Irrespective of the recovery and processing technologies employed, it is assumed that in 

most commercial projects the recovered bitumen would need to be upgraded in order for it to be 

accepted by oil refineries as feedstock for conventional fuels. Although there are variations 

among different production operations, four main processes are used to upgrade bitumen: coking 

(thermal conversion), catalytic conversion, distillation (fractionation), and hydrotreating. 

 Four technology combinations are evaluated in this PEIS for commercial tar sands 

development: 

• Surface mining projects with surface retorting, 

• Surface mining projects with solvent extraction, 

 

20 The PEIS does not evaluate the application of underground mining technologies for the commercial development 

of tar sands because, at this time, underground mining to develop tar sands does not appear to be commercially 

viable. 
Final OSTS PEIS 2-61 

• In situ steam injection projects, and 

• In situ combustion projects. 

 While many hypothetical development scenarios could be constructed for various 

technology combinations, it is not possible to project or analyze all of them in this PEIS. 

 For the same reasons, the BLM has elected not to attempt to issue leases on the basis of 

the NEPA analysis in this PEIS (see Section 2.5.1). This PEIS does not include analysis of a 

particular development scenario. Because the tar sands industry in the United States still lacks a 

commercially implemented technology, the BLM concluded that trying to anticipate a certain 

level of development would be too speculative. 

 Therefore, this PEIS includes description and analysis not of a particular level of 

development, but of the possible impacts of each type of technology that has been considered 

and researched, so far as this information is available to the BLM at this time. 

 In all allocation alternatives, including the No Action Alternative, RD&D leases could be 

issued in any areas opened to commercial tar sands leasing. While there has never yet been any 

formal RD&D program for tar sands leasing, and there is no present intention to establish such a 

program, nevertheless, RD&D projects might precede commercial tar sands leasing or might be 

conducted contemporaneously with commercial leasing and operations. Impacts from RD&D 

projects are anticipated to be qualitatively similar but smaller in scale than those of commercial 

projects, at least until any RD&D lease might be converted to a commercial tar sands lease and 

expanded to include preference right acreage. Additional NEPA analysis would be required prior 

to issuance of any RD&D lease and prior to conversion of an RD&D lease to a commercial tar 

sands lease and expansion into a PRLA. 

 If and when applications to lease are received and additional information becomes 

available, the BLM will conduct NEPA analyses, including consideration of direct, indirect, and 

cumulative effects, reasonable alternatives, and possible mitigation measures, as well as what 

level of development may be anticipated. On the basis of that NEPA analysis to be conducted at 

the lease stage, the BLM will consider the establishment of general lease stipulations and BMPs, 

either by further plan amendment, if necessary, or by other means. 

 This PEIS considers the components of current technologies that could be implemented 

in order to analyze the range of potential impacts that could occur. The scope of the PEIS 

analyses is intended to be broad enough to include the potential array of technologies that might 

be used to commercially develop tar sands resources on public lands. It is possible, however, that 

additional technologies may be identified as viable in the next 20 years. The application of such 

technologies on public lands may be allowed by the BLM; however, these technologies would 

need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. 
Final OSTS PEIS 2-62 

2.4.2 Alternative 1, Tar Sands No Action Alternative, No Change to 2008 Decision 

 Under this alternative, no existing land use plans would be amended. In 2008, the BLM 

designated a total of 430,686 acres as available for applications for commercial tar sands leasing. 

The lands available for lease under the 2008 land use plan amendment decisions would remain 

available for future leasing consideration under Alternative 1, No Action. See Section 2.3.2 for a 

full description of the No Action Alternative. Figure 2.4.2-1 shows the lands available for 

application for leasing under Alternative 1 and Table 2.4.2-1 shows the acreages available by 

STSA. Table 2.4.2-2 provides a summary of the activities and conditions assumed to occur under 

Alternative 1 relevant to tar sands leasing. 

2.4.3 Commercial Tar Sands Land Allocation Alternatives 

 The three new allocation action alternatives that the BLM has developed for establishing 

a commercial tar sands program are also summarized in Table 2.4.2-2. These new allocation 

alternatives, labeled Alternatives 2, 3, and 4, consist of different management approaches to 

future commercial tar sands leasing. Under all allocation alternatives, including the No Action 

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

for commercial leases and certain lands unavailable. Under all alternatives, additional NEPA 

and other appropriate analyses would be conducted prior to the issuance of commercial leases. 

In addition, site-specific NEPA and other appropriate analyses would be conducted during 

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

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

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

required mitigation measures. The potentially applicable mitigation measures discussed in the 

Chapter 5 impact analyses would be applied during the site-specific analyses, as appropriate. 

 As discussed in Section 1.2, the BLM has determined that certain lands within the STSAs 

are excluded from commercial leasing under all alternatives, on the basis of existing laws and 

regulations, E.O.s, land use plan designations, and other administrative designations or 

withdrawals. As a result, commercial leasing is excluded from all areas that are part of the BLMadministered NLCS, including designated Wilderness Areas, WSAs, National Monuments, 

NCAs, WSRs, National Historic Landmarks, and National Historic and Scenic Trails. Leasing 

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

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

available for future opportunity to lease for commercial development of tar sands resources 

under all allocation action alternatives. These additional areas include the following: 

• Circle Cliffs STSA. Most of the Circle Cliffs STSA falls entirely within the 

GSENM and Capitol Reef National Park. The issuance of new leases for 

mineral development within each of these units is prohibited. In addition, a 

small portion of the Circle Cliffs STSA underlies the Glen Canyon NRA; this 

area is part of the “Natural Zone” within which mineral leasing and 

development are prohibited. 
Final OSTS PEIS 2-63 

FIGURE 2.4.2-1 Lands Available for Application for Tar Sands Leasing under Alternative 1 for 

Commercial Tar Sands Development within the STSAs in Utah 
Final OSTS PEIS 2-64 

TABLE 2.4.2-1 Estimated Acres Potentially Available under 

Alternative 1 for Application for Leasing in Each STSA for 

Commercial Tar Sands Developmenta

STSA 

BLM-Administered 

Lands 

Split Estate 

Lands Total 

 

Argyle Canyon 1,022 10,204 11,226 

Asphalt Ridge 5,310 125 5,435 

Circle Cliffsb 0 0 0 

Hill Creek 19,924 36,583 56,507 

Pariette 10,083 78 10,161 

P.R. Spring 145,922 6,694 152,617 

Raven Ridge 14,348 16 14,364 

San Rafael 70,475 0 70,475 

Sunnyside 61,338 16,624 77,962 

Tar Sand Triangle 24,938 0 24,938 

White Canyon 7,001 0 7,001 

 

Total for Alternative 1 360,362 70,324 430,686 

a Totals may not be exact because of rounding. These estimates were 

derived from GIS data compiled for the PEIS analyses. 

b Leasing for commercial tar sands development in the Circle Cliffs 

STSA is excluded under all alternatives because it falls entirely 

within the GSENM and units managed by the NPS on which mineral 

leasing and development are prohibited. 

• Segments of rivers that the BLM has determined to be potentially eligible for 

WSR status by virtue of a WSR inventory but that have not yet been reviewed 

for potential suitability, and river segments that have been determined to be 

suitable for potential WSR designation in a BLM RMP. These river segments 

and a corridor extending at least 0.25 mi from the high water mark on either 

side of these segments would be excluded from commercial leasing (see 

footnote 3 in Section 2.2.3 for more information on this restriction). 

 Leasing would occur as set forth in 43 CFR Part 3140. For information purposes, the 

process could be summarized as follows. The BLM would hold a competitive lease sale as 

provided for in 43 CFR 3141.1. A potential lessee could submit a request or expression of 

interest in one or more tracts for competitive lease offering as provided for in 43 CFR 3141.6-1. 

The BLM anticipates that it will need additional information about potential technologies for, 

and impacts from, commercial production of tar sands in order to complete an analysis under 

NEPA, NHPA, ESA, and other appropriate laws, policies, and regulations for issuing leases or 

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

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

operations. 
TABLE 2.4.2-2 Summary of Activities and Conditions Assumed for Each of the Tar Sands Alternatives Condition Alternative 1 (No Action) Alternative 2 (Conservation Focus) Alternative 3 (Pending Commercial Lease) 

(M

Land use plans amended No plans would be amended. Four plans would be amended. Same as Alternative 2. Same 

Potential area made available for application for leasing (RD&D and commercial leases) 430,686 acres would be available for application for commercial lease: Argyle Canyon: 11,226 acres Asphalt Ridge: 5,435 acres Circle Cliffs: 0 acres Hill Creek: 56,507 acres Pariette: 10,161 acres P.R. Spring: 152,617 acres Raven Ridge: 14,364 acres San Rafael: 70,475 acres Sunnyside: 77,962 acres Tar Sand Triangle: 24,938 acres 

 White Canyon: 7,001 acres 

129,567 acres would be available for application for commercial lease:  Argyle Canyon: 0 acres  Asphalt Ridge: 2,123 acres  Circle Cliffs: 0 acres  Hill Creek: 45,357 acres  Pariette: 830 acres  P.R. Spring: 42,631 acres  Raven Ridge: 9,119 acres  San Rafael: 8,961 acres  Sunnyside: 20,400 acres  Tar Sand Triangle: 101 acres  White Canyon: 45 acres 

The pending Asphalt Ridge lease application south of Vernal, Utah covering approximately 2,123 acres. 

283,33

be avacomm Argy 12 Asph 5,4 Circ Hill  62 Pari P.R.  15 Rave 14 San  72 Sunn 72 Tar  24 Whi 7,0

Technologies considered 

Surface mining with surface retort. Surface mining with solvent  extraction. In situ steam injection. In situ combustion. 

Same as Alternative 1. Same as Alternative 1. Same 
TABLE 2.4.2-2 (Cont.) Condition Alternative 1 (No Action) Alternative 2 (Conservation Focus) Alternative 3 (Pending Commercial Lease) 

(

Lands excluded from commercial leasing Wilderness Areas, WSAs, other areas that are part of the NLCS: • All ACECs existing as of the signing of the 2008 ROD. • The Circle Cliffs STSA. • Historic trails. • Segments of rivers determined to be eligible or suitable for WSR status by virtue of an appropriate WSR inventory or RMP decision. • Incorporated town and city 

limits.

Same as Alternative 1, plus all of the following (except where present on lands subject to the pending Asphalt Ridge lease application): • Lands with wilderness 

characteristics

• Core or priority sage-grouse 

habitat.

• ACEC acreage both added 

since the 2008 OSTS PEIS ROD and under consideration for designation.

• Areas excluded under 

Alternative C of the 2008 OSTS PEIS not included in Alternative 1.

All areas except the pending Asphalt Ridge lease application. 

Same ACEC efforts since tas welconsidACECproces

Regulatory and operational constraints 

All commercial development would be conducted in compliance with existing federal, state, and local regulatory requirements and established BLM policies. 

Same as Alternative 1. Same as Alternative 1. Same 

Additional NEPA requirements 

Additional NEPA analyses would be required before any leases for commercial development could be issued. Site-specific NEPA analyses also would be conducted during the review and approval of project plans of development. 

Same as Alternative 1. Same as Alternative 1. Same 
TABLE 2.4.2-2 (Cont.) Condition Alternative 1 (No Action) Alternative 2 (Conservation Focus) Alternative 3 (Pending Commercial Lease) 

(

Applicable leasing regulations Leasing (including CHLs) would be conducted pursuant to the regulations pertaining to tar sands leasing at 43 CFR Part 3140. Same as Alternative 1. Same as Alternative 1. Same Abbreviations: ACEC = Area of Critical Environmental Concern; BLM = Bureau of Land Management; CFR = Code of Federal Regulations; CHL = 

lease; DOI = U.S. Department of the Interior; NLCS = National Landscape Conservation System; NEPA = National Environmental Policy Act; NOS

Reserves; OSTS = oil shale and tar sands; RD&D = research, development, and demonstration; ROD = Record of Decision; STSA = Special Tar SanStudy Area. a This range corresponds to 75% protection of LWC and sage-grouse core and priority habitat at the low end to no protection at the high end. 
Final OSTS PEIS 2-68 

 Under all allocation action alternatives, the BLM would ensure that the operator conducts 

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

requirements and established BLM policies, as generally described in Section 2.2 and 

Appendix D. That compliance would include, as appropriate, obtaining all permits (e.g., air, 

water, and waste management) as required by regulatory agencies; operating within the permit 

constraints; completing consultation with the USFWS under Section 7 of the ESA; completing 

consultation with SHPOs, Tribal Historic Preservation Officers, and other consulting parties 

under Section 106 of the NHPA; and compliance with any other relevant and applicable 

requirements. Compliance-related conditions would be developed on a project-by-project basis 

during site-specific analyses. 

 Under each of the three new allocation action alternatives, four land use plans in Utah 

would be amended to redesignate lands within the STSAs as available or not available for 

application to lease. The plans that would be amended to address commercial tar sands leasing 

and development include the following: 

• Monticello RMP (BLM 2008d); 

• Price RMP (BLM 2008e); 

• Richfield RMP (BLM 2008f); and 

• Vernal RMP (BLM 2008g). 

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

for any environmental or other specific reason and could be considered for application for 

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

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

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

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

future. 

 The following sections describe the new allocation action alternatives evaluated in this 

PEIS. The sections identify the additional leasing exclusions that the BLM has identified for 

each alternative and the proposed land use plan amendments. The specific land use plan 

amendments are discussed in greater detail in Appendix C. 

2.4.3.1 Alternative 2, Tar Sands Conservation Focus (Proposed Plan Amendment— 

see Section 2.5) 

 Under the terms of the 2011 settlement of the litigation over the 2008 oil shale and tar 

sands plan amendment (United States District Court [USDC], Colorado, February 15, 2011 

[USDC Colorado 2011]), the DOI and BLM agreed to analyze an alternative that excludes from 

oil shale and tar sands leasing and development all of the resource types listed below. Under this 

alternative, four land use plans in Utah would be amended to designate 129,567 acres as 
Final OSTS PEIS 2-69 

available for future commercial tar sands leasing.21 This alternative would exclude from 

commercial tar sands leasing the following categories or groups of categories of public lands 

and/or their resource values that may warrant protection from potential oil shale leasing and 

development, except where they might be located on the lands encompassed by the pending 

Asphalt Ridge lease application:22

1. All areas that the BLM has identified or may identify as a result of inventories 

conducted during this planning process, as LWC; 

2. Core or priority sage-grouse habitat, as defined by such guidance as the BLM 

or the DOI may issue; 

3. All ACECs located within the areas analyzed in the 2008 OSTS PEIS 

(76,666 acres in existing ACECs in the 2008 OSTS PEIS plus additional 

ACEC acreages as a result of recently completed Utah planning efforts), as 

well as all areas under consideration for designation as ACECS in planning 

processes currently underway; and 

4. All areas identified as excluded from commercial oil shale and tar sands 

leasing in Alternative C of the September 2008 OSTS PEIS (Alternative C 

made 830,296 acres available for potential commercial oil shale leasing and 

229,038 acres available for potential commercial tar sands leasing). 

 Specifically, under Alternative 2, the BLM proposes to designate a total of 129,567 acres 

as available for commercial tar sands leasing by amending two land use plans to adopt the 

conditions and constraints discussed above and in accordance with applicable federal, state, and 

local regulations and BLM policies. The lands that would be available for application include all 

BLM-administered public lands within the STSAs, including split estate lands where the federal 

government owns the mineral rights, except those lands described above and in Section 2.4.3. 

 Lands that are excluded from application for tar sands lease under Alternative 2, 

described in items 1–4, above, are shown in Figure 2.4.3-1. All prospective tar sands areas are in 

Utah; the Adobe Town exclusion in Wyoming thus does not affect tar sands areas. The lands that 

would be available for application for lease under Alternative 2, as modified, are shown in 

Figure 2.4.3-2. Table 2.4.3-1 lists the approximate number of acres of BLM-administered lands, 

 

21 In a February 15, 2011, settlement of a lawsuit brought by several environmental advocacy groups challenging 

the 2008 OSTS PEIS and ROD, the DOI and BLM agreed to analyze an alternative that considers excluding 

from oil shale/tar sands leasing and development all lands containing the resource types listed, as well as an 

alternative that considers excluding from oil shale/tar sands leasing and development some portion of the lands 

containing the resource types listed. The latter alternative is represented by Alternative 4, the Moderate 

Development Alternative, described below. 

22 This element has been included from Alternative 3, so as not to pre-determine the outcome of the BLM’s 

decision regarding the pending Asphalt Ridge lease application. 
Final OSTS PEIS 2-70 

FIGURE 2.4.3-1 Land Categories Used as Criteria To Identify Lands Open for Leasing under 

Alternative 2 (and Proposed Plan Amendment) for Commercial Tar Sands Development within 

the STSAs in Utah 
Final OSTS PEIS 2-71 

FIGURE 2.4.3-2 Lands Available for Application for Tar Sands Leasing under Alternative 2 

(and Proposed Plan Amendment) for Commercial Tar Sands Development within the STSAs 

in Utah 
Final OSTS PEIS 2-72 

TABLE 2.4.3-1 Estimated Acres Potentially Available under 

Alternative 2 (and Proposed Plan Amendment) for Application 

for Leasing in Each STSA for Commercial Tar Sands 

Developmenta

STSA 

BLM-Administered 

Lands 

Split Estate 

Lands Total 

 

Argyle Canyon 0 0 0 

Asphalt Ridge 2,123 0 2,123 

Circle Cliffsb 0 0 0 

Hill Creek 9,405 35,952 45,357 

Pariette 830 0 830 

P.R. Spring 39,033 3,598 42,631 

Raven Ridge 9,103 16 9,119 

San Rafael 8,961 0 8,961 

Sunnyside 11,020 9,380 20,400 

Tar Sand Triangle 101 0 101 

White Canyon 45 0 45 

 

Total for Alternative 2 80,621 48,945 129,567 

a Totals may not be exact because of rounding. These estimates were 

derived from GIS data compiled for the PEIS analyses. The GIS data 

may contain errors; therefore, these estimates should be considered to 

be only representative of the proposed leasing area. 

b Leasing for commercial tar sands development in the Circle Cliffs 

STSA is excluded under all alternatives because it falls entirely within 

the GSENM and units managed by the NPS on which mineral leasing 

and development are prohibited. 

including areas where the federal government owns only the mineral estate, available for 

application for commercial leasing under Alternative 2 by STSA.23

 In the formulation of Alternative C in the 2008 OSTS PEIS, the BLM excluded from 

commercial tar sands development all lands where such surface-disturbance and seasonal 

limitations were in place to protect known sensitive resources. Lands within each field office 

where stipulations for no surface disturbance, controlled surface use, or seasonal limitations were 

in place for oil and gas leasing were also excluded. Table 2.4.3-2 identifies the types of 

stipulations and restrictions in place for oil and gas leasing in each state that were used to 

identify lands excluded under Alternative C. 

 As shown in Figure 2.4.3-1 and reflected in Table 2.4.3-1, 301,119 acres available for 

application for leasing under Alternative 1 are excluded under Alternative 2; several STSAs 

 

23 The maps and acreage estimates were constructed by applying the leasing restrictions discussed in the text to the 

best available GIS datasets available to the BLM. These maps and acreage estimates may contain errors and 

should be considered to be only representative of the proposed leasing area for this alternative. As specific areas 

are considered for commercial leasing, a detailed evaluation of land status would be required. 
Final OSTS PEIS 2-73 

TABLE 2.4.3-2 Resources Covered by Stipulations 

and Restrictions in Place for Oil and Gas Leasing in 

the STSAs That Were Used To Identify Lands Not 

Available for Application for Tar Sands Leasing 

under Alternative C of the 2008 OSTS PEIS

 

Slopes and erosive/critical soils 

Floodplains, watersheds, and live water 

Sage-grouse leks and nesting habitat 

Raptor nests and habitat 

Wildlife habitata

Special status plants and relict vegetation 

VRM Class II areas and other high-quality visual resources 

ACECs 

Paleontological resources 

Otherb

a Wildlife habitat includes a combination of winter range, 

crucial winter range, summer range, and calving areas 

for antelope, bighorn sheep, deer, and elk, as well as 

seclusion areas for other wildlife. 

b Other resources include SMAs, recreation areas, and 

areas restricted from leasing for reasons not specified in 

the GIS data. 

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

portion of the lands proposed to be available for leasing is composed of relatively small, isolated 

tracts of land. These factors could result in limiting the potential amount of commercial tar sands 

development to a level well below that which might be realized under Alternative 1. 

2.4.3.2 Alternative 3, Tar Sands Pending Commercial Lease 

 This alternative is designed as an analog to the Research Lands Focus Oil Shale 

Alternative 3, described in Section 2.3.3.2, in order to respond to scoping comments that called 

for consideration of closing public lands to all development other than research projects. Unlike 

with respect to oil shale, there is no specific RD&D program for tar sands. Therefore, this 

alternative would also analyze foregoing the leasing of tar sands for the commercial development 

of fluid mineral resources entirely, except for one tar sands lease currently under consideration. 

The Asphalt Ridge tar sands lease application, shown in Figure 2.4.3-3, is located approximately 

11 mi south of Vernal, and the expression of commercial leasing interest that forms its basis was 

submitted on November 16, 2009. This prospective lease is for a commercial tar sands project; 

however, as with oil shale, the technology to develop tar sands commercially for fluid minerals 

development is in its nascent stages. While Alternative 3 analyzes the potential effects of this 

pending lease application, which covers approximately 2,100 acres, for the purposes of 

informing land use allocation decisionmaking, the information and analysis in this PEIS is not 

considered to be the NEPA analysis sufficient to provide the basis for determining whether or 
FIGURE 2.4.3-3 Location of Potential Tar Sands Lease under Alternative 3 
Final OSTS PEIS 2-75 

not to issue that lease. The NEPA analysis associated with the decision whether or not to issue 

the Asphalt Ridge lease is under preparation in a separate process. 

 Under this alternative, there is the possibility of limited development, in the event the 

pending commercial lease is issued; therefore, the opportunity remains for future decisions 

regarding availability of public lands for this resource to be made on the basis of demonstrable 

economic viability and in light of specific environmental information. Should tar sands 

development technologies be demonstrated to be feasible, the opportunity will still exist to 

consider making public lands available for future development. 

2.4.3.3 Alternative 4, Tar Sands Moderate Development (2008 OSTS PEIS ROD 

Minus Adobe Town and ACECs) 

 Under Alternative 4, the BLM would amend four land use plans in Utah to designate 

between 283,331 and 435,369 acres as available for application for commercial tar sands 

leasing.24 This alternative would exclude the following from commercial oil shale or tar sands 

leasing: 

1. The whole of the Adobe Town “Very Rare or Uncommon” area, as designated 

by the Wyoming Environment Quality Council on April 10, 2008 

(180,910 acres total; 167,517 acres of public land, of which 10,920 acres are 

already a BLM WSA). 

2. All ACECs located within the areas analyzed in the 2008 OSTS PEIS 

(76,666 acres in existing ACECs in the 2008 OSTS PEIS plus additional 

ACEC acreage as a result of recently completed Utah and Wyoming planning 

efforts).25

 Under Alternative 4, lands that would be available for future consideration for leasing 

would include those BLM-administered lands within the most geologically prospective tar sands 

areas, including split estate lands where the federal government owns the mineral rights. All 

ACECs would be excluded, as described above. Lands available for application for tar sands 

leasing under Alternative 4 are shown in Figure 2.4.3-4. 

 Lands within the most geologically prospective tar sands areas identified by the BLM as 

LWC would be managed as in Alternative 1; that is, they would be available for future 

consideration of leasing and development. Decisions regarding management of these areas would 

be the responsibility of the individual BLM field offices. Field offices would apply direction 

from current RMPs and BLM policy in making leasing decisions on LWC utilizing the BLM 

 

24 This alternative satisfies the settlement agreement to exclude some, but not all, lands from the application of oil 

shale and tar sands leasing, in comparison to Alternative 2. 

25 This would only include those ACECs that were formally designated in those plans. ACECs that were proposed 

but not formally designated in the applicable plans undergoing revision/amendment at that time would not be 

considered for closure. 
Final OSTS PEIS 2-76 

FIGURE 2.4.3-4 Lands Available for Application for Tar Sands Leasing under Alternative 4 for 

Commercial Tar Sands Development within the STSAs in Utah 
Final OSTS PEIS 2-77 

NEPA and planning processes. Alternative 4 includes as open for leasing roughly 9,600 acres of 

formerly eligible WSR segments closed to leasing under Alternative 1 that have been determined 

to be not suitable in the appropriate RMP revision. 

 Similarly, with respect to the management of sage-grouse habitat, under Alternative 4, 

lands would be managed as in Alternative 1. No specific decisions regarding core and priority 

habitat will be made; rather, those decisions will be left up to the individual field offices to make, 

which would determine the management of such areas through additional NEPA and planning 

processes (as appropriate) with respect to core and priority sage-grouse habitat consistent with 

applicable BLM policy. These policies were described in the 2008 OSTS PEIS (pp. 4-78 to 4-80) 

and include BLM’s policies and general practices, including specific frequently used mitigation 

measures that might be applied to any development, as warranted by analysis at the lease and/or 

development stage. The BLM is currently engaged in a National Greater Sage-Grouse Planning 

Strategy to identify necessary conservation measures and management restrictions for the 

maintenance and recovery of sage-grouse populations. As part of this sage-grouse planning 

process in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming, the BLM is identifying those areas as open or closed 

to mineral leasing and development; for those areas open to leasing, the BLM is identifying 

major or moderate constraints (management actions) that may be required to mitigate impacts on 

sage-grouse or their habitat. Field offices would need to take this planning into account and 

incorporate protective measures in any authorizations, as warranted by ecological conditions, and 

on the basis of environmental analysis. As such, it is likely that not all the areas that are currently 

open under this alternative for potential future leasing would be leased. The maximum acreage 

developed could be much less than expressed in Table 2.4.3-3, as a result of the application of 

current BLM policy. 

 Depending on what the applicable RMP provides with respect to LWC and core and 

priority sage-grouse habitat, it may be necessary to initiate a plan amendment at the leasing 

and/or development stage to make allocation decisions on an individual RMP basis regarding 

management of these lands with respect to oil shale and tar sands resources. The reason for 

qualifying the amount of acreage available for lease under this alternative is that while areas of 

core and priority sage-grouse and areas of LWC are left open for potential future leasing and 

development of oil shale and tar sands resources, the likelihood of all this acreage being 

available for further oil shale and tar sands resources leasing and development is low. 

National and state-specific guidance related to sage-grouse management and protection of core 

and priority habitat will likely result in substantially less acreage being available, as will field 

office management decisions related to the protection of LWC. It is difficult to establish 

disturbance amounts at the programmatic level, before more is known regarding the specifics of 

leasehold location and technology to be used. Tables 2.4.3-4 and 2.4.3-5 show what this might 

look like under different protective scenarios follow. The scenarios are only provided to illustrate 

this idea, but the decisions to protect these amounts are not being made at this time as part of this 

land use plan amendment initiative. These decisions will be made at the field office level as part 

of the NEPA and/or planning analyses completed for leasing and site-specific development. 
Final OSTS PEIS 2-78 

TABLE 2.4.3-3 Estimated Acres Potentially Available for 

Application for Leasing in Each STSA for Commercial Tar 

Sands Development under Alternative 4a

STSA 

BLM-Administered 

Lands 

Split Estate 

Lands Total 

 

Argyle Canyon 1,022 11,274 12,296 

Asphalt Ridge 5,310 125 5,435 

Circle Cliffsb 0 0 0 

Hill Creek 25,569 36,583 62,152 

Pariette 10,083 78 10,161 

P.R. Spring 146,900 7,616 154,516 

Raven Ridge 14,348 16 14,364 

San Rafael 72,146 0 72,146 

Sunnyside 54,270 18,090 72,360 

Tar Sand Triangle 24,938 0 24,938 

White Canyon 7,001 0 7,001 

 

Total for Alternative 4 361,587 73,782 435,369 

a Totals may not be exact because of rounding. These estimates were 

derived from GIS data compiled for the PEIS analyses. The GIS data 

may contain errors; therefore, these estimates should be considered to 

be only representative of the proposed leasing area. 

b Leasing for commercial tar sands development in the Circle Cliffs 

STSA is excluded under all alternatives because it falls entirely within 

the GSENM and units managed by the NPS on which mineral leasing 

and development are prohibited. 

TABLE 2.4.3-4 Estimated Acres Potentially Available in Each State 

for Application for Leasing for Commercial Tar Sands Development 

under Alternative 4, Assuming 75% of the LWC and Sage-Grouse 

Core and Priority Habitat Is Protected through NSO or No Lease 

Stipulations 

State 

Acres LWC and 

Sage-Grousea

BLM-Administered 

Lands 

Split Estate 

Lands Total 

 

Utah 202,717 222,482 60,849 283,331 

a Acreage that is identified as either LWC or sage-grouse core or priority 

habitat or both within Alternative 4. 
Final OSTS PEIS 2-79 

TABLE 2.4.3-5 Estimated Acres Potentially Available in Each State 

for Application for Leasing for Commercial Tar Sands Development 

under Alternative 4, Assuming 25% of the LWC and Sage-Grouse 

Core and Priority Habitat Is Protected through NSO or No Lease 

Stipulations 

State 

Acres LWC and 

Sage-Grousea

BLM-Administered 

Lands 

Split Estate 

Lands Total 

 

Utah 202,717 315,219 69,471 384,690 

a Acreage that is identified as either LWC or sage-grouse core or priority 

habitat or both within Alternative 4. 

2.5 PROPOSED PLAN AMENDMENT 

 This 2012 Proposed RMP Amendments/Final PEIS presents four alternatives for 

allocation of oil shale (two of these include sub-alternatives), and four analogous alternatives 

for allocation of tar sands. Under Alternative 2(b), identified as the Preferred Alternative for 

oil shale resources in the Draft RMP Amendments/Draft PEIS, and carried forward (with 

modifications as specified above, and herein) as the Proposed Plan Amendment in the Proposed 

RMP/Final PEIS, the lands open for future consideration for oil shale leasing would be the 

same as those in Alternative 2(a), but only for RD&D leases. Revised Alternative 2(a), the 

Conservation Focus Alternative, analyzes removing the following lands from possible oil shale 

and tar sands (as applicable; tar sands are located only in Utah) leasing: 

1. All areas that the BLM has identified or may identify as a result of 

inventories conducted during this planning process, as containing 

wilderness characteristics (acreage figures for LWC have been corrected 

from the erroneous figures included in the Draft RMP Amendments/Draft 

PEIS; no supplementation is required, as these lands were analyzed as 

open under Alternative 1); 

2. The whole of the Adobe Town “Very Rare or Uncommon” area, 

as designated by the Wyoming Environment Quality Council on 

April 10, 2008; 

3. Core or priority sage-grouse habitat, as defined by such guidance as the 

BLM or the Department of the Interior may issue, except in Wyoming; 

4. All ACECs located within the areas analyzed in the September 2008 

OSTS PEIS; and 

5. All areas identified as excluded from commercial oil shale and tar sands 

leasing in Alternative C of the September 2008 OSTS PEIS (the text has 
Final OSTS PEIS 2-80 

been clarified from that in the Draft RMP Amendments/Draft PEIS to 

reflect that the 2008 Alternative C only contemplated excluding thenexisting ACECs from oil shale/tar sands development). 

 Further details regarding the Proposed Plan Amendment are presented below. 

1. For the Proposed Plan Amendment, the BLM has modified the 

Alternative 2(b) approach for Wyoming to the greater sage-grouse core 

and priority habitat to be coordinated with the policy direction in 

Wyoming’s E.O. 2011-5, which has been recognized by the USFWS as an 

adequate regulatory mechanism for the conservation of greater sagegrouse, and has been adopted by the BLM Wyoming State Office. 

Wyoming E.O. 2011-5 does not generally preclude mineral development; 

rather, it establishes conditions designed to maintain and enhance greater 

sage-grouse habitat (e.g., mitigation measures). Such modification would 

not require a supplement to the Draft PEIS, as these areas were analyzed 

as open for oil shale leasing and development under Alternative 1, the No 

Action Alternative. 

2. Under the Proposed Plan Amendment, oil shale and tar sands leasing is 

precluded in ACECs and in areas that are currently under consideration 

for designation as ACECs. This element of the Proposed Plan consists 

of elements analyzed under Alternatives 1, 2, and 4 in the Draft RMP 

Amendments/Draft PEIS; therefore, no NEPA supplementation is 

required. 

3. With respect to the “RD&D First” provision of the Preferred Alternative, 

as presented in the Draft RMP Amendments/Draft PEIS, several reviewers 

noted that each oil shale RD&D lease in the study area would need to 

employ a different experimental technology. More specifically, under the 

Preferred Alternative, each potential lessee must first obtain an RD&D 

lease for a tract prior to converting that RD&D lease to a commercial 

lease. If an RD&D lessee establishes the viability of a particular 

technology on leasehold A, that lessee wishing to operate on leasehold B 

must first obtain an RD&D lease on leasehold B. However, because that 

technology would already have been proven in the study area (i.e., on 

leasehold A), it would no longer be the basis for obtaining an RD&D lease 

on leasehold B, as that technology would no longer be considered 

“experimental.” Reviewers noted that the inability to exploit or to license 

the proven technology for use off of leasehold A would be likely to inhibit 

the development of a commercial oil shale industry and would reduce the 

incentive to participate in the RD&D program. To resolve this problem, 

the Proposed Plan includes language to the effect that “In the areas open 

for oil shale leasing and development under Alternative 2(b), the Secretary 

may issue a commercial lease to an entity that has succeeded in converting 

an RD&D lease to commercial lease (or who holds the license to a 
Final OSTS PEIS 2-81 

technology that has converted from RD&D to commercial lease) for a 

tract on other lands open under Alternative 2(b). In these circumstances, 

such commercial lessee would not have to begin with another RD&D 

lease on the new leasehold.” 

4. Similar to the issue presented above in item 3, under the Preferred 

Alternative in the Draft PEIS, no provision is made for those instances 

where a potential lessee intends to employ a technology that has proved 

commercially viable either on nonfederal lands within the study area, or 

outside the study area. The BLM modified the Preferred Alternative as 

follows: “The Secretary may issue a commercial oil shale lease on the 

lands open under the Proposed Plan, where the potential commercial 

lessee intends to employ technology which has proved commercially 

viable on non-federal lands in the study area[, or outside the study area,] 

and which the Secretary determines to be environmentally acceptable.” 

5. In response to comments received on the Draft PEIS, and so as not to 

pre-determine the outcome of the BLM’s decisionmaking process with 

respect to the pending RD&D lease applications, Alternative 2(b) has been 

revised in the Proposed Plan to incorporate that element of Alternative 3 

whereby the one potential RD&D lease in Utah currently under 

consideration would be available for potential oil shale leasing. However, 

like the other areas that are available for potential oil shale leasing under 

this alternative, these areas are also open to RD&D first only. 

6. Unlike the states of Colorado and Wyoming, the State of Utah has not yet 

completed the process of identifying core or priority greater sage-grouse 

habitat. The information available for Utah and currently in use by the 

BLM is the September 2011 occupied habitat map. This map almost 

certainly represents a larger area than will be eventually designated by 

the State of Utah as core or priority habitat, but at this time it is the best 

source of information regarding sage-grouse habitat. The Proposed Plan 

will continue to rely on the 2011 map as proxy for core or priority habitat. 

This means the 2012 OSTS ROD is likely to be inconsistent with the 

results of the State process in Utah regarding sage-grouse habitat 

protection. However, based on review of the December 9, 2011, NOI for 

the two regional/subregional national sage-grouse plan amendments, it 

should be a fairly straightforward process to incorporate any desired 

changes to the oil shale/tar sands allocation decisions in Utah in the sagegrouse planning initiative, or through a subsequent plan amendment 

process. 

7. As noted in Section 2.4.3.1, decisionmaking regarding the pending 

Asphalt Ridge tar sands leasing application has not yet been completed. In 

order to avoid pre-determining the outcome of that decisionmaking 

process, the lands encompassed by the pending lease application are 
Final OSTS PEIS 2-82 

included in the Proposed Plan as open, and have been added to the acreage 

analyzed as open in Alternative 2. These lands were analyzed as open for 

leasing and development in Alternative 3 of the Draft PEIS. 

8. The split estate lands (federal minerals, tribal surface) within the Hill 

Creek Extension of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation will remain open 

for potential oil shale and tar sands leasing and development. The ROD 

for the 2008 Oil Shale and Tar Sands PEIS opened these lands for 

potential oil shale and tar sands leasing and development in accordance 

with the expressed desire of the Ute Indian Tribe. Closing these lands to 

potential leasing and development would be very different from how these 

lands have been managed, and the BLM does not have any indication from 

the Tribe that they would like to see this changed. 

2.6 ALTERNATIVES AND ISSUES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM 

DETAILED ANALYSIS 

 During the initial public comment period regarding the scope of the PEIS, a number of 

comments were submitted regarding the analysis of specific alternatives or issues. Several 

suggestions for specific alternatives were incorporated into alternatives assessed in the PEIS. 

 As discussed below, some of the suggested alternatives and key issues were determined 

to be either outside the scope of the PEIS or inappropriate to incorporate as recommended in the 

comment. As a result, these alternatives and issues were eliminated from detailed analysis in the 

PEIS. The following sections discuss these alternatives and issues, why they were eliminated, 

and, where applicable, how parts of the PEIS process address the general points raised by 

commentors. 

2.6.1 Alternatives That Use the New USGS In-Place Oil Assessment Maps as the Basis for 

the Planning Area To Be Analyzed 

 Several comments were received during the public scoping process that suggested that 

the BLM should develop an alternative that examines the oil shale resource in the area defined 

by the recent USGS assessment of in-place oil in oil shales of the Green River Formation in the 

Piceance and Uinta Basins of western Colorado and eastern Utah (USGS 2010a,b, 2011). 

Estimated total in-place oil in the Piceance Basin is about 1.5 trillion barrels, or about 50% larger 

than the previous in-place assessment of about 1 trillion barrels. Almost all of this increase is due 

to (1) new areas being assessed that had too little data to assess previously and (2) new intervals 

assessed that were not assessed previously. The assessment itself says, “Much of this previously 

unassessed resource is of low grade and is unlikely to be developed.” The BLM considered this 

new information and has determined that while the new data should inform and update the 

2012 PEIS effort, particularly with respect to information pertaining to the 2008 PEIS study 

area, the boundaries defining the in-place assessment do not represent the most geologically 

prospective areas of the Green River Formation located in the Piceance, Uinta, Green River, and 
Final OSTS PEIS 2-83 

Washakie Basins. Therefore, the PEIS will not employ the USGS boundary to define the study 

area. 

2.6.2 Alternatives That Would Apply the Wyoming “Most Geologically Prospective Area” 

Criteria to Colorado and Utah 

 Comments were received during the public scoping process that suggested the BLM 

should develop an alternative that examines the oil shale resource area within an area where the 

grade and thickness of the oil shale deposits yield 15 gal of oil shale per ton of rock (gal/ton) or 

more and are 15 ft thick or greater. The PEIS evaluates the potential impacts of designating lands 

as available or not available for commercial leasing of oil shale and tar sands resources that are 

located on public lands in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. Specifically, the study area for the oil 

shale resources includes the most geologically prospective resources of the Green River 

Formation located in the Piceance, Uinta, Green River, and Washakie Basins. The BLM is 

continuing to employ for this planning initiative the standard it developed pursuant to the Energy 

Policy Act of 2005, which is to focus on the most geologically prospective resources as defined 

by grade and thickness of the deposits.

For the purposes of this PEIS, the most geologically prospective oil shale resources in 

Colorado and Utah are those deposits that yield 25 gal/ton or more of oil shale and are 25 ft thick 

or greater. In Wyoming, where the oil shale resource quality is not as high as it is in Colorado 

and Utah, the most geologically prospective oil shale resources are those deposits that yield 

15 gal/ton or more of oil shale and are 15 ft thick or greater. The BLM has determined that it 

would not make economic sense to open larger areas in Colorado and Utah to potential oil shale 

leasing where the resource is of low grade and unlikely to be developed at this time, because 

interest in future leasing would be directed at higher grade deposits. Future oil shale production 

will depend on technological progress and on the levels and volatility of future oil prices. 

Technology progression will determine how quickly the costs of oil shale extraction can be 

brought down and how economically natural gas and petroleum liquids can be produced from the 

process. In the future, once technology has progressed and the higher quality oil shale has been 

leased and developed, it may be economic to produce these lower-grade deposits. At that time, 

additional planning and NEPA analysis could be conducted to open these areas to leasing and 

development, where warranted. If, however, technological progress and economic conditions 

rapidly come to support development of deposits less than 25 ft thick and yielding less than 

25 gal/ton, the areas that would be open in Wyoming under Alternative 1, 2, or 4 would be 

available for future leasing without further land use planning amendments. 

2.6.3 Alternatives Considering Alternate Energy Sources and Carbon Sequestration 

 Several comments were received during public scoping that suggested that the BLM 

should evaluate the development of alternate energy sources, including renewable energy 

(e.g., wind and solar power systems), nuclear energy, and conventional oil and gas resources 

instead of or in comparison with the development of oil shale or tar sands. In addition, several 

comments suggested that the BLM should evaluate ways to displace the nation’s dependence on 
Final OSTS PEIS 2-84 

oil through conservation and market- and innovation-based strategies. The BLM has determined 

that such evaluations, although worthwhile with respect to national energy policy development, 

do not fulfill the purpose of the proposed action to be analyzed in the PEIS, which is to establish 

an appropriate mix of public lands as open or closed to commercial oil shale and tar sands 

development. 

 In addition, several comments suggested that the BLM should evaluate oil shale and tar 

sands technologies that incorporate carbon sequestration. While the PEIS may acknowledge that 

such technologies may become available for use, the BLM believes this is an issue that would be 

best examined in detail at the time of site-specific NEPA analyses of a specific plan of 

development. 

2.6.4 Alternatives That Prohibit Leasing in Specific Areas 

 A number of scoping comments requested that the BLM develop alternatives prohibiting 

commercial leasing in specific areas, including all NPS units, the GSENM, existing WSAs, and 

wilderness-quality lands in Utah. Since the scoping meetings were conducted, the BLM has 

determined that the scope of this PEIS will be limited to BLM-administered lands and will not 

evaluate commercial leasing on USFS- and NPS-administered lands. 

 Wilderness Areas, WSAs, other lands within the NLCS (including National Monuments), 

and existing ACECs currently closed to mineral development are excluded from consideration 

for leasing under all alternatives in the PEIS. 

2.6.5 Off-Site Processing of Oil Shale 

 At least one comment suggested that the BLM develop an alternative that examines 

off-site processing of oil shale in locations where environmental impacts may be mitigated by 

site-specific factors. Constructing adequate scenarios that could evaluate all the possible 

locations and site-specific factors contributing to the magnitude (or mitigation) of impacts would 

be speculative and potentially misleading. Such considerations might be appropriate at the sitespecific level when more information is known about the project location, specific technologies, 

and other factors. Potential mitigation could be incorporated into the project plan of development 

at that time. 

2.6.6 Establishment of Federal Subsidies 

 Several comments suggested that the BLM evaluate the potential for federal subsidies 

and the level of subsidy required to facilitate leasing and development. This suggestion was 

considered to be outside the scope of the PEIS, which provides analysis related to a purpose and 

need focused on land use planning decisionmaking. 
Final OSTS PEIS 2-85 

2.6.7 Closing of All RD&D Lease Lands, Except for One Pending Oil Shale RD&D 

Application and One Pending Tar Sands RD&D Lease in the Vernal Field Office 

 One comment suggested closing all RD&D lease lands, except for one pending oil shale 

RD&D application and one pending tar sands RD&D lease in the Vernal Field Office. This 

would mean that the existing RD&D leases, if relinquished, could not be leased again, without 

another planning process. This alternative was not carried forward because it is largely similar to 

Alternative 3 and is not consistent with the Secretary’s and the Director’s emphasis on 

developing and maintaining a robust RD&D process. 

2.6.8 Opening of All ACECs to Oil Shale Leasing 

 The BLM also considered whether it would be appropriate to include an alternative that 

opened all ACECs to oil shale and tar sands leasing. This suggestion was not carried forward 

because a blanket opening of all ACECs to oil shale and tar sands development is not reasonable 

where some ACECs are closed to fluid mineral development, because of the very specific 

resource concerns that support their designation as ACECs. It is anticipated that development of 

oil shale and tar sands resources is likely to have at least as many, if not more, impacts on 

resources as conventional fluid minerals development. 

2.6.9 Opening of All Lands with Wilderness Characteristics to Oil Shale and Tar Sands 

Leasing 

 At least one comment suggested that the BLM develop an alternative that directs that the 

LWC remain open to oil shale and tar sands leasing, without restrictions, and without allowing, 

as is allowed in the No Action Alternative, individual field offices to exercise their discretion as 

to how to manage these lands. Under the No Action Alternative and Oil Shale and Tar Sands 

Alternative 4 (Moderate Development), the BLM has not explicitly excluded leasing within 

lands it believes may have wilderness characteristics, as it has under Alternatives 2 and 3 for 

each resource. Recently completed and ongoing plan revisions and plan amendments in many of 

the field offices where such lands have been identified will determine appropriate management 

requirements for these areas, under the No Action Alternative and the Moderate Development 

Alternative for each resource. These management prescriptions may provide for limitations on 

uses that may take place in areas determined to have wilderness characteristics. Oil shale or tar 

sands development in such areas may prove inconsistent with such management prescriptions 

adopted for those areas. Such development may also be inconsistent with the Secretary’s and 

Director’s emphasis on developing and maintaining a robust RD&D process in order to discern 

more about developing technologies before committing certain kinds of resource areas to such 

uses. 
Final OSTS PEIS 2-86 

2.6.10 Mid-Range Alternative That Excludes a Fixed Percentage of Lands with Wilderness 

Characteristics 

 In an effort to include as part of the analysis an alternative that considered a moderate 

approach to management of both LWC and development of oil shale and tar sands resources, the 

BLM considered including as an element of Alternative 4, above, a provision that would exclude 

from surface disturbance that may result from oil shale or tar sands development a fixed 

percentage of lands identified as having wilderness characteristics, calculated either on a per 

leasehold basis, or on the basis of the total LWC identified, regardless of leasehold boundary. 

 The BLM considered several possible ways to structure such a provision, in order to 

display for purposes of analysis what such a moderate approach would look like. For instance, 

the BLM considered whether the percentage disturbance should be calculated on a per 

leasehold basis or on the basis of the total acreage of the lands identified as having wilderness 

characteristics, regardless of leasehold boundary. Either option would provide the BLM with a 

flexible approach to managing LWC and mitigating potential impacts, depending on project 

location and technology proposed for use. The primary difference between these two structural 

possibilities was that, while the latter would seem to offer the BLM more flexibility in preserving 

the wilderness characteristics, its drawback would be that it would allow the first lessee to 

“monopolize” the available disturbance percentage of LWC, depending on the relative 

configuration of lease boundaries and LWC. 

 Similarly, the BLM considered what the appropriate disturbance percentage might be in 

order to structure a moderate approach, at this land use allocation stage, but determined that it 

was not possible to identify a specific percentage unless specific information was known 

regarding the relative configuration of the particular proposed leasehold and the potentially 

impacted LWC, as well as information about the technology to be used and the specifics 

regarding potential reclamation. 

 In examining these options, it became clear that such an alternative would be difficult 

to represent at all, as well as analyze in detail, given the lack of availability of this specific 

information. Further, the BLM determined that the impacts of such a moderate approach were 

already considered in the range of alternatives undergoing detailed analysis. That is, under the 

Conservation Focus and the Research Lands Focus Alternatives, LWC would be identified as not 

available for future consideration of commercial oil shale and tar sands leasing and development. 

However, under the No Action and Moderate Development Alternatives, the LWC are to 

remain available for future consideration of oil shale and tar sands leasing, where such future 

consideration would be carried out consistent with the manner in which the applicable individual 

RMP provides for management of wilderness characteristics, when further specifics about 

proposed commercial leasing and development projects would be known. In the No Action and 

Moderate Development Alternatives, in particular, the impact analysis displays in a qualitative 

manner the potential environmental consequences of such commercial leasing and development 

on LWC. Under the No Action and Moderate Development Alternatives, specific impacts on 

LWC would be analyzed in future NEPA analysis supporting individual lease decisions and 

particular project designs. 
Final OSTS PEIS 2-87 

 At the leasing stage, the field offices may consider maximum disturbance limits and other 

mitigation measures for the management of oil shale within LWC. 

2.6.11 Carrying-Capacity Thresholds 

 A number of commentors suggested that the BLM consider the potential impacts of oil 

shale development within the context of carrying capacity of the regional and local environment 

and communities. The carrying capacity of a system is the maximum level of activity that can be 

sustained within a specific area without significant, detrimental impact. The White River RMP 

(BLM 1997b) established carrying-capacity thresholds specific to oil shale development and 

potential impacts on air quality, socioeconomic impacts, big game habitat, and water quality. 

Carrying-capacity thresholds have not been established elsewhere within the three-state study 

area. Although the programmatic alternatives do not explicitly consider carrying-capacity 

thresholds or propose that commercial levels be constrained in the future by these thresholds, 

they do require that additional site-specific NEPA analyses be conducted prior to the issuance of 

commercial leases. At that time, when complete information is available defining the location of 

the commercial development, technologies to be employed, scale of operations, and time line for 

development, analyses can more reliably define appropriate carrying-capacity thresholds and 

evaluate potential impacts. 

2.6.12 Establishment of Trust Funds 

 Several commentors requested the PEIS consider the establishment of a trust fund to 

provide financial support to local communities early in the development process. While the PEIS 

socioeconomic impact analyses consider the potential benefits of a trust fund in terms of impact 

mitigation, requiring lessees to establish such a fund is beyond the jurisdiction of the BLM and, 

therefore, is not included in any of the alternatives. If an applicant proposes such a fund as part 

of its plan of development, perhaps as potential mitigation for socioeconomic impacts, the BLM 

would analyze it in site-specific NEPA analyses of the plan of development. 

2.6.13 Research Lands Focus That Considers Only the Current RD&D Leases 

 Under all of the allocation alternatives, the eight RD&D leases that have been issued 

contain terms that allow development of the original leases and could allow development of the 

associated PRLAs, totaling 32,000 acres. One pending RD&D oil shale leases are under review, 

with a smaller PRLA acreage totaling 640 acres. For purposes of analysis, it is assumed in all 

alternatives that the pending RD&D lease could reach commercial production utilizing the 

technologies being tested on the leases and may utilize the whole PRLA area. One pending tar 

sands application, with an acreage totaling 2,100 acres, is also currently under review. 

Recognizing that there is a chance that the pending RD&D oil shale lease and/or the pending tar 

sands lease would not be approved, the BLM considered developing a separate sub-alternative 

under each alternative to analyze these differences. However, since this PEIS is necessarily a 

qualitative PEIS, it was determined that because of the minimal acreage under consideration, 
Final OSTS PEIS 2-88 

these sub-alternatives would not be substantially different from the three action alternatives. 

Impacts from excluding the new RD&D oil shale project and/or the pending tar sands lease 

would be qualitatively similar but smaller in scale than those discussed in the three action 

alternatives. 

2.7 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES 

 The alternatives presented in this PEIS were evaluated for potential environmental 

impacts associated with the amendment of land use plans to identify BLM-administered lands in 

Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming that would be made available or not available for application for 

leasing for commercial oil shale or tar sands development. The PEIS also identifies the types of 

environmental impacts that could accompany commercial oil shale and tar sands development. 

More quantitative and detailed impact analyses, including the identification of the magnitude and 

extent of potential impacts on specific social, cultural, economic, and natural resources, will be 

conducted at the leasing and project levels. Table 2.7-1 summarizes the impacts of oil shale 

alternatives, and Table 2.7-2 summarizes the impacts of the tar sands alternatives that are more 

fully described in Chapter 6 of the PEIS. 
TABLE 2.7-1 Summary Comparison of Potential Environmental Impacts of Amending Land Use Plans To Identify Not Available for Application for Leasing for the Commercial Development of Oil Shale, Including RD&D, in Color

Wyoming, and Environmental Impacts of Future Construction and Operation of Commercial Projects under the Fo

Resource Alternative 1: No Action. 2,017,714 Acres Currently Classified as Available for Leasing in Applicable Land Use Plans in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. No Land Use Plans Would Be Amended To Allow for Additional Oil Shale Developmenta Alternative 2: Conservation Focus (as modified for the Proposed Plan Amendment). Amend Land Use Plans To Identify 676,967 Acres of Federal Land in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming as Available for Application for Leasing for Commercial Oil Shale Developmentb Alternative 3: Research Lands Focus. Amend Land Use Plans To Identify 32,640 Acres of Federal Land in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming as Available for Application for Leasing for Commercial Oil Shale Developmentb A

De

1,

La

W

Ap

Impacts Common to All Alternatives The eight existing 160-acre RD&D projects are valid existing rights, and the impacts are the same for each of the 

existing RD&D projects may be expanded to include a total of 5,120 acres, or 640 acres for the second round lea

conditions of their existing leases are met. Commercial development could occur on a total acreage of 32,000 acleases. Impacts identified under Alternative 3 for the RD&D leases would be the same as those under Alternative

On the basis of the analysis in this PEIS, the BLM has determined that, with the exception noted in the socioeconpotential impacts on property values, land use plan amendments under Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would not result ienvironment or socioeconomic setting. However, the future development of commercial oil shale projects that co

subsequent NEPA analysis identified in these three alternatives would have impacts on these resources. The type

associated with future commercial oil shale development are described in Chapter 4 of the PEIS. The magnitude cannot be quantified at this time because key information about the location of commercial projects, the technolo

employed, the project size or production level, development time lines, and mitigation measures that would be ap
TABLE 2.7-1 (Cont.) Resource Alternative 1: No Action. 2,017,714 Acres Currently Classified as Available for Leasing in Applicable Land Use Plans in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. No Land Use Plans Would Be Amended To Allow for Additional Oil Shale Developmenta Alternative 2: Conservation Focus (as modified for the Proposed Plan Amendment). Amend Land Use Plans To Identify 676,967 Acres of Federal Land in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming as Available for Application for Leasing for Commercial Oil Shale Developmentb Alternative 3: Research Lands Focus. Amend Land Use Plans To Identify 32,640 Acres of Federal Land in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming as Available for Application for Leasing for Commercial Oil Shale Developmentb A

De

1,

La

W

Ap

Land Use Current land uses such as grazing, recreation, wild horse and burro management, oil and gas production, and mineral extraction would be affected at locations where commercial oil shale projects (and supporting infrastructure) 

would be located within the current 2,017,714-acre lease area. These lands include 12 ACECs totaling 46,000 acres where oil and gas leasing is allowed. 

Potential impacts of commercial development would be similar in nature to the impacts identified for commercial development under Alternative 1, but Alternative 2 would make available for application for leasing 676,967 acres and would substantially reduce the impact on sensitive resources, especially in the Piceance Basin. Alternative 2 would exclude all lands containing core and priority sage-grouse habitat (except in Wyoming) and LWC. 

RD&D project development and operations on up to 32,640 acres would have effects on land use similar in nature to those for Alternative 1 but on a far smaller land area. The RD&D projects (including the PRLAs) are not expected to affect land use on adjacent parcels except where vehicular traffic, noise, and construction and operations activities could alter the quality of recreational activities. 

The ecurregraziproduextra1,968area and mAlterAlterleasin46,0010,00Town 

Additional land use changes would occur outside of leased areas on nonfederal lands where project support infrastructure (e.g., power plants, ROWs, and employer-provided housing) would be constructed and where agricultural water is diverted from existing uses. Public lands 

Additional land use changes would occur outside of leased areas on nonfederal lands where project support infrastructure (e.g., power plants, ROWs, and employer-provided housing) would be constructed and where agricultural water is diverted from existing uses. Public lands 

Additional land use changes would occur outside of leased areas on nonfederal lands where project support infrastructure (e.g., power plants, ROWs, and employer-provided housing) would be constructed and where agricultural water is diverted from existing uses. Public lands 

Addiwoullands wherinfraand ehousand wdiver
TABLE 2.7-1 (Cont.) Resource Alternative 1: No Action. 2,017,714 Acres Currently Classified as Available for Leasing in Applicable Land Use Plans in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. No Land Use Plans Would Be Amended To Allow for Additional Oil Shale Developmenta Alternative 2: Conservation Focus (as modified for the Proposed Plan Amendment). Amend Land Use Plans To Identify 676,967 Acres of Federal Land in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming as Available for Application for Leasing for Commercial Oil Shale Developmentb Alternative 3: Research Lands Focus. Amend Land Use Plans To Identify 32,640 Acres of Federal Land in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming as Available for Application for Leasing for Commercial Oil Shale Developmentb A

De

1,

La

W

Ap

Land Use (Cont.) outside the lease areas would also be affected by ROWs for roads, transmission lines, and pipelines. outside the lease areas would also be affected by ROWs for roads, transmission lines, and pipelines. outside the lease areas would also be affected by ROWs for roads, transmission lines, and pipelines. Publ

areas ROWlines

Soil and Geologic Resources Future commercial oil shale development could affect soil and geologic resources in the 

Alternative 1 potential lease areas and at locations on nonfederal lands where projectrelated infrastructure (e.g., power plants and employer-provided housing) would be located. Potential impacts would be associated with the construction and operation of project facilities and related infrastructure and would include soil disturbance, soil removal and compaction, subsurface disturbance of geologic resources during drilling and mining, and increased erosion potential of exposed soils and geologic materials. 

Potential project impacts from future project development would be similar to those identified for Alternative 1 but could occur at fewer locations and in less geologically sensitive locations. 

Geologic resources could be affected by construction and operation activities at the eight existing and one proposed 160-acre RD&D locations and at areas where support infrastructure (e.g., utility ROWs and access roads) would be located. Potential impacts on soil and geologic resources from development of the RD&D sites would be similar to those identified for Alternatives 1 and 2, but under Alternative 3 impacts would be limited geographically and in overall magnitude. 

Simi
TABLE 2.7-1 (Cont.) Resource Alternative 1: No Action. 2,017,714 Acres Currently Classified as Available for Leasing in Applicable Land Use Plans in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. No Land Use Plans Would Be Amended To Allow for Additional Oil Shale Developmenta Alternative 2: Conservation Focus (as modified for the Proposed Plan Amendment). Amend Land Use Plans To Identify 676,967 Acres of Federal Land in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming as Available for Application for Leasing for Commercial Oil Shale Developmentb Alternative 3: Research Lands Focus. Amend Land Use Plans To Identify 32,640 Acres of Federal Land in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming as Available for Application for Leasing for Commercial Oil Shale Developmentb A

De

1,

La

W

Ap

Paleontological Resources Impacts could include the destruction of paleontological resources and loss of valuable scientific information within development footprints, degradation and/or destruction of resources and their stratigraphic context within or 

near the development area, and increased potential for loss of exposed resources from looting or vandalism as a result of increased human access and related disturbance in sensitive areas. Such impacts could be reduced or eliminated by applying mitigation measures; therefore, adverse impacts are not expected. 

The types of potential impacts would be similar to those identified under Alternative 1. Such impacts could be reduced or eliminated by applying mitigation measures; therefore, adverse impacts are not expected. 

The types of potential impacts would be similar to those identified under Alternative 1. Such impacts could be reduced or eliminated by applying mitigation measures; therefore, adverse impacts are not expected. 

The twoulidentSuch or elimitigadveexpe

About 90% of designated acreage (1,784,773 acres) overlies geologic formations having a high potential to contain important paleontological resources 

About 89% (603,729 acres) of designated acreage overlies geologic formations having a high potential to contain important paleontological resources (i.e., PFYC 4/5). Most 

About 99% (32,400 acres) of the existing and pending RD&D lease areas overly geologic formations having a high potential to contain important paleontological resources (i.e., PFYC 4/5). 

Aboudesiggeolohigh imporesou
TABLE 2.7-1 (Cont.) Resource Alternative 1: No Action. 2,017,714 Acres Currently Classified as Available for Leasing in Applicable Land Use Plans in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. No Land Use Plans Would Be Amended To Allow for Additional Oil Shale Developmenta Alternative 2: Conservation Focus (as modified for the Proposed Plan Amendment). Amend Land Use Plans To Identify 676,967 Acres of Federal Land in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming as Available for Application for Leasing for Commercial Oil Shale Developmentb Alternative 3: Research Lands Focus. Amend Land Use Plans To Identify 32,640 Acres of Federal Land in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming as Available for Application for Leasing for Commercial Oil Shale Developmentb A

De

1,

La

W

Ap

Paleontological Resources (Cont.) (i.e., PFYC 4/5). Most of the available acreage overlying high-potential geologic formations occurs in Wyoming (857,040 acres). of the available acreage overlying high-potential geologic formations occurs in Utah (316,308 acres). Most of these are located in the Piceance Basin, Colorado (about 26,000 acres). of th

overlgeoloWyo

Water Resources Commercial oil shale development could impact 

water resources in the Alternative 1 potential lease areas and at locations on nonfederal lands where projectrelated infrastructure (e.g., power plants and employer-provided housing) would be located. In the geologically prospective oil shale areas (including a 2-mi buffer zone) are about 184 mi of perennial streams in the Piceance Basin (or about 92% of the total perennial streams in the basin), about 262 mi of 

Potential impacts from future construction and operation of commercial oil shale projects would be similar to those identified for Alternative 1 but could occur at fewer locations and in less geologically sensitive locations. Alternative 2 includes a total of 441 mi of perennial streams that could be affected by commercial project development, or 59% of the total perennial streams in the four basins. In addition, Alternative 2 excludes lands that are currently identified in 

Water resources could incur localized impacts as a result of construction and operation activities of the eight existing and one proposed RD&D projects. Surface disturbance at the sites could lead to increased erosion and subsequent runoff and sedimentation to local streams. A total of 28 mi of perennial streams could be affected by RD&D, amounting to 11% of the total perennial streams in Colorado and 2% of those in Utah. Groundwater could be affected by dewatering or contamination due to accidental 

Simi
TABLE 2.7-1 (Cont.) Resource Alternative 1: No Action. 2,017,714 Acres Currently Classified as Available for Leasing in Applicable Land Use Plans in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. No Land Use Plans Would Be Amended To Allow for Additional Oil Shale Developmenta Alternative 2: Conservation Focus (as modified for the Proposed Plan Amendment). Amend Land Use Plans To Identify 676,967 Acres of Federal Land in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming as Available for Application for Leasing for Commercial Oil Shale Developmentb Alternative 3: Research Lands Focus. Amend Land Use Plans To Identify 32,640 Acres of Federal Land in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming as Available for Application for Leasing for Commercial Oil Shale Developmentb A

De

1,

La

W

Ap

Water Resources (Cont.) perennial streams in the Uinta Basin (or 100% of the total perennial streams in the basin), 190 mi of perennial streams in the Green River Basin (or 75% of the total streams in the Basin), and 39 mi of perennial streams in the Washakie Basin 

(or 75% of the total streams in the Basin). Altogether, the quantity of stream miles is 674 mi, or about 90% of the miles of perennial streams in the four basins. Potential project-related impacts may include reduced surface water quality due to erosion and sedimentation, dewatering of local aquifers, modification of surface and groundwater flow, and contamination of surface water or groundwater due to accidental releases of hazardous materials and by-products of retorting. 

BLM land use plans as having steep slopes and/or fragile or highly erosive soils included in Alternative 1. Thus, there is a reduced potential for erosionrelated impacts with commercial oil shale development under this alternative. 

releases of hazardous materials and by-products of retorting. 
TABLE 2.7-1 (Cont.) Resource Alternative 1: No Action. 2,017,714 Acres Currently Classified as Available for Leasing in Applicable Land Use Plans in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. No Land Use Plans Would Be Amended To Allow for Additional Oil Shale Developmenta Alternative 2: Conservation Focus (as modified for the Proposed Plan Amendment). Amend Land Use Plans To Identify 676,967 Acres of Federal Land in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming as Available for Application for Leasing for Commercial Oil Shale Developmentb Alternative 3: Research Lands Focus. Amend Land Use Plans To Identify 32,640 Acres of Federal Land in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming as Available for Application for Leasing for Commercial Oil Shale Developmentb A

De

1,

La

W

Ap

Air Quality Commercial oil shale development could impact air quality in the Alternative 1 potential lease areas and at locations on nonfederal lands where project-related infrastructure (e.g., power plants or transmission lines) would be 

located. The construction and operation of future commercial oil shale projects could result in local and regional impacts on air quality and AQRVs, such as visibility and acid deposition. These impacts could result from heavy equipment and vehicle emissions, fugitive dust generation from construction and mining areas and along some access roads, and oil shale processing emissions. In addition, O3 precursors of NOx

and VOCs from oil shale development could exacerbate wintertime high-O3 occurrences 

already prevalent in the study area. 

Commercial oil shale development could impact air quality in the Alternative 2 potential lease areas and at locations on nonfederal lands where project-related infrastructure (e.g., power plants or transmission lines) would be located. Potential local and regional impacts on air quality and AQRVs would be similar in nature to those identified for Alternative 1. However, Alternative 2 has more than 1.4 million fewer (about 69%) acres of land than Alternative 1 where future commercial oil shale development could occur and affect local or regional air quality and AQRVs. Thus, the magnitude of potential impacts is anticipated to be far less than that for Alternative 1. 

Air quality is not expected to be adversely affected by the construction and operation of the eight current and one proposed RD&D projects. Minor, localized impacts could result from heavy equipment and vehicle emissions, fugitive dust generation from construction and mining areas and along some access roads, and oil shale processing emissions. Commercial oil shale development could impact air quality in the Alternative 3 potential lease areas and at locations on nonfederal lands where project-related infrastructure (e.g., power plants or transmission lines) would be located. Potential local and regional impacts on air quality and AQRVs would be similar in nature to those identified for Alternative 1. However, 

Comdevequalipotenlocatwherinfraor tralocatregioand AnaturidentAlterapproacres Altercommdeveaffecquali
TABLE 2.7-1 (Cont.) Resource Alternative 1: No Action. 2,017,714 Acres Currently Classified as Available for Leasing in Applicable Land Use Plans in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. No Land Use Plans Would Be Amended To Allow for Additional Oil Shale Developmenta Alternative 2: Conservation Focus (as modified for the Proposed Plan Amendment). Amend Land Use Plans To Identify 676,967 Acres of Federal Land in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming as Available for Application for Leasing for Commercial Oil Shale Developmentb Alternative 3: Research Lands Focus. Amend Land Use Plans To Identify 32,640 Acres of Federal Land in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming as Available for Application for Leasing for Commercial Oil Shale Developmentb A

De

1,

La

W

Ap

Air Quality (Cont.) Because of the need for project- and site-specific information, it is not possible to identify the nature and magnitude of regional air quality impacts from commercial development within the Alternative 1 potential lease areas. because of its far smaller lease areas (about 1.6% of land for Alternative 1), the magnitude of potential impacts is anticipated to be minimal compared to that for Alternative 1. 

Noise Commercial oil shale 

development could affect noise levels in the Alternative 1 potential lease areas and at locations on nonfederal lands where project-related infrastructure (e.g., power plants or transmission lines) would be located. In most cases, noise is considered a local problem, not a regional problem. Localized noise levels (i.e., increased noise levels) could be affected by construction activities, 

Commercial oil shale development could impact noise levels in the Alternative 2 potential lease areas and at locations on nonfederal lands where project-related infrastructure (e.g., power plants or transmission lines) would be located. Localized noise impacts would be similar in nature and magnitude than those identified for Alternative 1. Changes in ambient noise levels due to project development could 

Localized noise impacts (i.e., increased noise levels) could occur at each of the RD&D project locations as a result of construction activities, mining, operating machinery (e.g., crushers and conveyors) and other equipment (generators and compressors), and vehicular traffic. Commercial oil shale development could affect noise levels in the Alternative 3 potential lease areas and at locations on nonfederal lands 

Comdevelevelpotenlocatwherinfraor tralocatLocabe simagnfor Aambiproje
TABLE 2.7-1 (Cont.) Resource Alternative 1: No Action. 2,017,714 Acres Currently Classified as Available for Leasing in Applicable Land Use Plans in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. No Land Use Plans Would Be Amended To Allow for Additional Oil Shale Developmenta Alternative 2: Conservation Focus (as modified for the Proposed Plan Amendment). Amend Land Use Plans To Identify 676,967 Acres of Federal Land in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming as Available for Application for Leasing for Commercial Oil Shale Developmentb Alternative 3: Research Lands Focus. Amend Land Use Plans To Identify 32,640 Acres of Federal Land in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming as Available for Application for Leasing for Commercial Oil Shale Developmentb A

De

1,

La

W

Ap

Noise (Cont.) mining, processing equipment (e.g., crushers and conveyors), pipeline compressor stations, and vehicle traffic. Noise levels from oil shale development could exceed EPA guidelines and/or Colorado 

regulations for receptors in close proximity but would not exceed them at farther receptor locations (e.g., beyond 0.5 mi). 

occur wherever a project is located within the 676,967 acres identified as available for application for leasing under Alternative 2, which is about 1.4 million fewer (about 69%) acres of land than under Alternative 1. 

where project-related infrastructure (e.g., power plants and transmission lines) would be located. Localized noise impacts would be similar in nature and magnitude than those identified for Alternative 1. Changes in ambient noise levels due to project development could occur wherever a project is located within the 32,640 acres identified as available for application for leasing under Alternative 3, which is only about 1.6% of the land under Alternative 1. 

occulocat1.9 mavailleasinwhic(abouunde
TABLE 2.7-1 (Cont.) Resource Alternative 1: No Action. 2,017,714 Acres Currently Classified as Available for Leasing in Applicable Land Use Plans in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. No Land Use Plans Would Be Amended To Allow for Additional Oil Shale Developmenta Alternative 2: Conservation Focus (as modified for the Proposed Plan Amendment). Amend Land Use Plans To Identify 676,967 Acres of Federal Land in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming as Available for Application for Leasing for Commercial Oil Shale Developmentb Alternative 3: Research Lands Focus. Amend Land Use Plans To Identify 32,640 Acres of Federal Land in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming as Available for Application for Leasing for Commercial Oil Shale Developmentb A

De

1,

La

W

Ap

Ecological Resources (resource subgroups summarized below) Ecological resources could be affected at each of the proposed areas available for application for leasing of oil shale resources. Impacts related to oil shale development may include wildlife disturbance, habitat loss, exposure to accidental 

releases of hazardous materials, the spread or establishment of invasive species, and the loss or injury of biota within physically disturbed areas related to the projects (e.g., utility ROWs and access roads). 

Commercial oil shale development could impact ecological resources in Alternative 2 potential lease areas in the same manner as Alternative 1 but on 1.3 million fewer acres, some of which have been excluded because of the presence of sensitive ecological resources. 

Commercial oil shale development within the Alternative 3 potential lease areas could adversely affect ecological resources in these areas in the same manner as in Alternative 1 but would occur on 1.9 million fewer acres of land. 

ComdeveAlterareas ecoloareas Alteron 49

Indirect impacts such as those related to surface and groundwater withdrawals could occur in more distant but hydrologically connected areas. 

Same as Alternative 1. Same as Alternative 1. Same 
TABLE 2.7-1 (Cont.) Resource Alternative 1: No Action. 2,017,714 Acres Currently Classified as Available for Leasing in Applicable Land Use Plans in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. No Land Use Plans Would Be Amended To Allow for Additional Oil Shale Developmenta Alternative 2: Conservation Focus (as modified for the Proposed Plan Amendment). Amend Land Use Plans To Identify 676,967 Acres of Federal Land in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming as Available for Application for Leasing for Commercial Oil Shale Developmentb Alternative 3: Research Lands Focus. Amend Land Use Plans To Identify 32,640 Acres of Federal Land in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming as Available for Application for Leasing for Commercial Oil Shale Developmentb A

De

1,

La

W

Ap

Aquatic Resources For Alternative 1, within the lease areas (including a 2-mi buffer), there are 49 perennial streams, totaling 674 mi. The construction and operation of commercial oil shale projects within the lease areas could adversely affect aquatic 

resources in these streams. Aquatic resources could be affected by changes in water quality due to erosion, runoff, recharge by contaminated groundwater, and accidental releases of hazardous materials from the project areas. Surface water depletion resulting from groundwater and surface water use could negatively affect aquatic resources. Some aquatic biota could be impacted as a result of the physical disturbance of aquatic habitats during construction and by utility and ROW crossings. Project-related ROWs could also increase public access to aquatic habitats. 

For Alternative 2, within the lease areas (including a 2-mi buffer), there are 38 perennial streams, totaling 441 mi. The construction and operation of commercial oil shale projects within the lease areas could adversely affect aquatic resources in these streams. Potential types of impacts would be similar to those identified for Alternative 1 and could result in habitat loss or degradation, which could affect the abundance and distribution of aquatic biota in the affected habitats. 

For Alternative 3, within the lease areas (including a 2-mi buffer), there are 7 perennial streams, totaling 28 mi. Potential impacts would be similar in nature to those identified for Alternative 1 but could occur in fewer locations. 

For Alease buffestreaPotenwoulidentcould degrathe aof aqhabit
TABLE 2.7-1 (Cont.) Resource Alternative 1: No Action. 2,017,714 Acres Currently Classified as Available for Leasing in Applicable Land Use Plans in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. No Land Use Plans Would Be Amended To Allow for Additional Oil Shale Developmenta Alternative 2: Conservation Focus (as modified for the Proposed Plan Amendment). Amend Land Use Plans To Identify 676,967 Acres of Federal Land in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming as Available for Application for Leasing for Commercial Oil Shale Developmentb Alternative 3: Research Lands Focus. Amend Land Use Plans To Identify 32,640 Acres of Federal Land in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming as Available for Application for Leasing for Commercial Oil Shale Developmentb A

De

1,

La

W

Ap

Plant Communities and Habitats The construction and operation of commercial oil shale projects could impact plant communities and habitats that are present in the Alternative 1 potential lease areas, including oil shale endemics on or near project sites and in areas where 

associated infrastructure would be located. Impacts could include the direct loss of vegetation from site clearing and grading; reduced habitat quality due to soil compaction, dewatering, water quality reduction, erosion, sedimentation, or accidental releases of hazardous materials; and the introduction or spread of invasive species. Utility and access road ROWs could also result in the fragmentation of some habitats. These potential lease areas include about 167,800 acres that have been identified for the protection of wetlands, riparian habitats, 

The construction and operation of commercial oil shale projects could impact plant communities and habitats that occur in the Alternative 2 potential lease areas. Potential impacts would be similar in nature to those identified for Alternative 1 but could occur in fewer locations. Alternative 2 areas do not include ACECs but are adjacent to or near 20 ACECs designated for sensitive plants or plant communities. 

The construction and operation of commercial oil shale projects in areas available for application for leasing under Alternative 3 could affect plant communities and habitats. The areas available for application for leasing include about 39 acres that have been identified for the protection of sensitive plants and remnant vegetation associations and floodplains. Alternative 3 areas do not include ACECs but are near 3 ACECs designated for sensitive plants or plant communities. 

The cof cocould and hAlterareasareas 152,3been protehabitstatuspeciassocwoulthose Alterfeweareas are aACEplant
TABLE 2.7-1 (Cont.) Resource Alternative 1: No Action. 2,017,714 Acres Currently Classified as Available for Leasing in Applicable Land Use Plans in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. No Land Use Plans Would Be Amended To Allow for Additional Oil Shale Developmenta Alternative 2: Conservation Focus (as modified for the Proposed Plan Amendment). Amend Land Use Plans To Identify 676,967 Acres of Federal Land in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming as Available for Application for Leasing for Commercial Oil Shale Developmentb Alternative 3: Research Lands Focus. Amend Land Use Plans To Identify 32,640 Acres of Federal Land in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming as Available for Application for Leasing for Commercial Oil Shale Developmentb A

De

1,

La

W

Ap

Plant Communities and Habitats (Cont.) floodplains, special status and sensitive plant species, and remnant vegetation associations. Alternative 1 areas also include all or portions of 8 ACECs and are adjacent to or near 14 ACECs designated for sensitive plants or plant 

communities. 

Wildlife The construction and operation 

of commercial oil shale projects could impact wildlife and their habitats where individual projects are located within the 2,017,714 acres currently classified as available for application for oil shale leasing. Wildlife habitats identified for spatial or temporal protection in BLM RMPs that would be present in the lease application areas include, but are not limited to, 106,092 acres of raptor nesting areas, 89,310 acres of big game severe winter range, 136,991 acres of elk crucial winter range, 

The construction and operation of commercial oil shale projects could impact wildlife and their habitats where individual projects are located within the 676,967 acres identified for oil shale leasing. There were no habitats for wildlife identified for spatial or temporal protection in BLM RMPs that would be present in the lease application areas. 

The construction and operation of commercial oil shale projects could impact wildlife and their habitats where individual projects are located within the 32,640 acres identified for oil shale leasing. Wildlife habitats identified for spatial or temporal protection in BLM RMPs that would be present in the lease application areas include 78 acres of big game severe winter range and 483 acres of elk and mule deer summer range (these acreages are not additive as they do not account for overlap among habitat categories). 

The cof cocould habitproje1,968oil shhabittempRMPthe leinclu103,7areassever126,8winteelk c
TABLE 2.7-1 (Cont.) Resource Alternative 1: No Action. 2,017,714 Acres Currently Classified as Available for Leasing in Applicable Land Use Plans in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. No Land Use Plans Would Be Amended To Allow for Additional Oil Shale Developmenta Alternative 2: Conservation Focus (as modified for the Proposed Plan Amendment). Amend Land Use Plans To Identify 676,967 Acres of Federal Land in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming as Available for Application for Leasing for Commercial Oil Shale Developmentb Alternative 3: Research Lands Focus. Amend Land Use Plans To Identify 32,640 Acres of Federal Land in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming as Available for Application for Leasing for Commercial Oil Shale Developmentb A

De

1,

La

W

Ap

Wildlife (Cont.) 13,493 acres of elk calving, 163,100 acres of elk and mule deer summer range, 110,671 acres of mule deer crucial winter range, 83,237 acres of mule deer winter range, 29,334 acres of mule deer fawning area, 

5,021 acres of mule deer migration corridor, 11 acres of moose winter range, 10,600 acres of pronghorn crucial winter range, and 241,673 acres of pronghorn winter range (these acreages are not additive as they do not account for habitat overlap among species or habitat types for a species). 

and m110,5cruci60,87wintemule 5,02migrmoos10,48cruci237,8wintenot aaccouamonfor a 
TABLE 2.7-1 (Cont.) Resource Alternative 1: No Action. 2,017,714 Acres Currently Classified as Available for Leasing in Applicable Land Use Plans in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. No Land Use Plans Would Be Amended To Allow for Additional Oil Shale Developmenta Alternative 2: Conservation Focus (as modified for the Proposed Plan Amendment). Amend Land Use Plans To Identify 676,967 Acres of Federal Land in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming as Available for Application for Leasing for Commercial Oil Shale Developmentb Alternative 3: Research Lands Focus. Amend Land Use Plans To Identify 32,640 Acres of Federal Land in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming as Available for Application for Leasing for Commercial Oil Shale Developmentb A

De

1,

La

W

Ap

Wildlife (Cont.) A total 227,466 acres of mule deer winter habitat, 19,558 acres of mule deer summer habitat, 235,346 acres of elk winter habitat, and 19,565 acres of elk summer habitat overlap lands would be available for oil shale leasing. Only 1,456 acres of mule deer winter habitat, 483 acres of mule deer summer habitat, 1,456 acres of elk winter habitat, and 483 acres of elk summer habitat overlap lands that would be available for oil shale leasing. A tot

deer 171,8summof elk 171,6habitbe avleasin

Potential impacts on wildlife and their habitats would be associated with site clearing and grading, operational noise and activities, accidental releases of hazardous materials, and increased human access to some habitats, and could result in reduced abundance and distribution of affected species. Construction and operation activities could also disturb wildlife in nearby locations and fragment habitats along projectrelated ROWs. 

Overall, potential impacts on wildlife and their habitats would be similar in nature to those identified for Alternative 1, but oil shale leasing could occur in less than 31% of lands identified for Alternative 1. 

Overall, potential impacts on wildlife and their habitats would be similar in nature to those identified for Alternative 1, but oil shale leasing could occur in less than 1.7% of lands identified for Alternative 1. 

Overwildlbe siidentshale over Alter
TABLE 2.7-1 (Cont.) Resource Alternative 1: No Action. 2,017,714 Acres Currently Classified as Available for Leasing in Applicable Land Use Plans in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. No Land Use Plans Would Be Amended To Allow for Additional Oil Shale Developmenta Alternative 2: Conservation Focus (as modified for the Proposed Plan Amendment). Amend Land Use Plans To Identify 676,967 Acres of Federal Land in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming as Available for Application for Leasing for Commercial Oil Shale Developmentb Alternative 3: Research Lands Focus. Amend Land Use Plans To Identify 32,640 Acres of Federal Land in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming as Available for Application for Leasing for Commercial Oil Shale Developmentb A

De

1,

La

W

Ap

Threatened and Endangered Species 193 federal candidate, BLM- designated sensitive, and state- listed species, and 20 federally listed threatened or endangered species could occur in areas that are available for application for leasing under Alternative 1. Approximately 382,000 acres of 

land identified in RMPs with existing lease stipulations for the protection of listed or sensitive species would be available for leasing under Alternative 1.

179 federal candidate, BLMdesignated sensitive, and statelisted species, and 19 federally listed threatened or endangered species could occur in areas that are available for application for leasing under Alternative 2. Approximately 382,000 acres of land identified in RMPs with existing lease stipulations for the protection of listed or sensitive species would be excluded under Alternative 2.

42 federal candidate, BLMdesignated sensitive, and statelisted species, and 9 federally listed threatened or endangered species could occur in areas that are available for application for leasing under Alternative 3. 

181 fdesiglisted listed speciare aleasin

Approximately 99 mi of designated critical habitat for Colorado River endangered fishes and 714,462 acres of core habitat areas for the greater sage-grouse occur within lands identified for application for leasing under Alternative 1. 

There are no designated critical habitats for ESA-listed species or core habitat areas for the greater sage-grouse within lands identified for application for leasing under Alternative 2. 

There are no designated critical habitats for ESA-listed species within lands identified for application for leasing under Alternative 3. However, approximately 2,338 acres of core habitat for the greater sagegrouse occurs within these lands. 

ApprdesigColofishehabitsage-identleasin
TABLE 2.7-1 (Cont.) Resource Alternative 1: No Action. 2,017,714 Acres Currently Classified as Available for Leasing in Applicable Land Use Plans in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. No Land Use Plans Would Be Amended To Allow for Additional Oil Shale Developmenta Alternative 2: Conservation Focus (as modified for the Proposed Plan Amendment). Amend Land Use Plans To Identify 676,967 Acres of Federal Land in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming as Available for Application for Leasing for Commercial Oil Shale Developmentb Alternative 3: Research Lands Focus. Amend Land Use Plans To Identify 32,640 Acres of Federal Land in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming as Available for Application for Leasing for Commercial Oil Shale Developmentb A

De

1,

La

W

Ap

Threatened and Endangered Species (Cont.) Impacts on threatened and endangered species would be similar to or the same as those described for impacts on aquatic resources, plant communities and habitats, and wildlife. Specific impacts associated with development would depend on 

the locations of projects relative to species populations and the details of project development. 

Same as Alternative 1. Same as Alternative 1. Same 

The construction and operation of commercial oil shale projects could impact threatened, endangered, and sensitive species and their habitats where individual projects are located within the 2,017,714 acres currently classified as available for application for leasing. Habitats for threatened, endangered, or sensitive species identified for spatial or temporal protection in BLM RMPs across all three states that would be present in the lease application 

The construction and operation of commercial oil shale projects could impact threatened, endangered, and sensitive species and their habitats where individual projects are located within the 676,967 acres identified for oil shale leasing. There were no habitats for threatened, endangered, or sensitive species identified for spatial or temporal protection in BLM RMPs that would be present in the lease application areas. 

The construction and operation of commercial oil shale projects could impact threatened, endangered, and sensitive species and their habitats where individual projects are located within the 32,640 acres identified for oil shale leasing. There were no habitats for threatened, endangered, or sensitive species identified for spatial or temporal protection in BLM RMPs that would be present in the lease application areas. 

The cof cocould endaspeciindivwithiidentHabiendaidentproteall thpreseareas 
TABLE 2.7-1 (Cont.) Resource Alternative 1: No Action. 2,017,714 Acres Currently Classified as Available for Leasing in Applicable Land Use Plans in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. No Land Use Plans Would Be Amended To Allow for Additional Oil Shale Developmenta Alternative 2: Conservation Focus (as modified for the Proposed Plan Amendment). Amend Land Use Plans To Identify 676,967 Acres of Federal Land in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming as Available for Application for Leasing for Commercial Oil Shale Developmentb Alternative 3: Research Lands Focus. Amend Land Use Plans To Identify 32,640 Acres of Federal Land in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming as Available for Application for Leasing for Commercial Oil Shale Developmentb A

De

1,

La

W

Ap

Threatened and Endangered Species (Cont.) areas include 46,971 acres for special status plants, 26,487 acres for the bald eagle, 2,100 acres for special status raptors other than the bald eagle, 372,347 acres for the sage-grouse, and 38,041 acres for the black-footed ferret. for sp

15,922,100 raptoeaglesage-for th

Visual Resources Commercial oil shale 

development could impact visual resources on the Alternative 1 lease areas and at locations on nonfederal lands where project-related infrastructure (e.g., power plants and employer-provided housing) would be located. Visually sensitive areas within the potential lease areas include 10 ACECs and 5 SRMAs. Sensitive areas occurring within 5 mi of the potential lease areas include 8 WSAs, 30 ACECs, 2 SRMAs, 3 WSRs or eligible segments, 8 National Historic Trails, 2 NWRs, 1 National 

Commercial oil shale development could impact visual resources on the Alternative 2 lease areas and at locations on nonfederal lands where project-related infrastructure (e.g., power plants and employer-provided housing) would be located. Potential impacts from project construction and operation would be similar to those identified for Alternative 1. Visually sensitive areas within the potential lease areas include 2 SRMAs and 1 Scenic Byway. Sensitive areas occurring within 5 mi of the proposed lease areas 

Commercial oil shale development could impact visual resources on the Alternative 3 lease areas and at locations on nonfederal lands where project-related infrastructure (e.g., power plants and employer-provided housing) would be located. Potential impacts from project construction and operation would be similar to those identified for Alternative 1. There are no visually sensitive areas within the potential lease areas, while sensitive areas within 5 mi of the lease areas include 3 ACECs. These 

ComdevevisuaAlterlocatwherinfraand ehousPotenconstwoulidentVisuthe p2 SRoccuprop
TABLE 2.7-1 (Cont.) Resource Alternative 1: No Action. 2,017,714 Acres Currently Classified as Available for Leasing in Applicable Land Use Plans in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. No Land Use Plans Would Be Amended To Allow for Additional Oil Shale Developmenta Alternative 2: Conservation Focus (as modified for the Proposed Plan Amendment). Amend Land Use Plans To Identify 676,967 Acres of Federal Land in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming as Available for Application for Leasing for Commercial Oil Shale Developmentb Alternative 3: Research Lands Focus. Amend Land Use Plans To Identify 32,640 Acres of Federal Land in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming as Available for Application for Leasing for Commercial Oil Shale Developmentb A

De

1,

La

W

Ap

Visual Resources (Cont.) Historic Landmark, and 1 National Scenic Highway. These visually sensitive areas could be affected by future commercial oil shale development within the Alternative 1 lease areas. include 7 WSAs, 26 ACECs, 3 SRMAs, 8 WSRs or eligible segments, 4 National Historic Trails, 2 NWRs, 1 National Historic Landmark, and 1 Scenic Byway. These visually sensitive areas could be affected by future commercial oil shale 

development within the Alternative 2 lease areas. 

visually sensitive areas could be affected by future commercial oil shale development within the Alternative 3 lease areas. 

8 WS4 WS4 NaTrailHisto4 Scevisuaaffecoil shAlter

Cultural Resources Commercial oil shale 

development could impact cultural resources in the Alternative 1 potential lease areas and at locations on nonfederal lands where projectrelated infrastructure (e.g., power plants and employer-provided housing) would be located. Only some of the cultural resources on the approximately 1.9 million acres that would be available for application for leasing have been identified. Additional resources are likely to exist in 

Commercial oil shale development could impact cultural resources in the Alternative 2 potential lease areas and at locations on nonfederal lands where projectrelated infrastructure (e.g., power plants and employer-provided housing) would be located. The majority of the lands that would be available for application for leasing have the potential to contain important cultural resources. Some of these resources could be affected by 

Portions of the eight existing and one proposed RD&D sites have been surveyed for cultural resources, and two of the sites are known to contain cultural resources. Because mitigation is required for RD&D activities, the construction and operation of the nine projects are not expected to significantly impact cultural resources. Some of these resources could be affected by construction and operation of commercial projects within the potential lease areas. Potential impacts 

ComdevecultuAlterareas nonfrelate(e.g., emplwoulthe capprothat wapplibeen resou
TABLE 2.7-1 (Cont.) Resource Alternative 1: No Action. 2,017,714 Acres Currently Classified as Available for Leasing in Applicable Land Use Plans in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. No Land Use Plans Would Be Amended To Allow for Additional Oil Shale Developmenta Alternative 2: Conservation Focus (as modified for the Proposed Plan Amendment). Amend Land Use Plans To Identify 676,967 Acres of Federal Land in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming as Available for Application for Leasing for Commercial Oil Shale Developmentb Alternative 3: Research Lands Focus. Amend Land Use Plans To Identify 32,640 Acres of Federal Land in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming as Available for Application for Leasing for Commercial Oil Shale Developmentb A

De

1,

La

W

Ap

Cultural Resources (Cont.) the potential leasing area. Some of these resources could be affected by construction and operation of commercial projects within the potential lease areas. Potential impacts may include damage or destruction and increased 

potential for vandalism or theft due to increased human access. 

construction and operation of commercial projects within the potential lease areas. Potential impacts may include damage or destruction and increased potential for vandalism or theft due to increased human access. 

may include damage or destruction and increased potential for vandalism or theft due to increased human access. 

the pof thaffecoperaprojelease may destrpotendue t

Indian Tribal Concerns Making land available for 

application for leasing has the potential to affect resources important to Indian tribes. However, leasing and future development could result in adverse impacts depending on the size and location of the facilities and the technology chosen to develop the lease. 

Making land available for application for leasing has the potential to affect resources important to Indian tribes. However, leasing and future development could result in adverse impacts depending on the size and location of the facilities and the technology chosen to develop the lease. 

Making land available for application for leasing has the potential to affect resources important to Indian tribes. However, leasing and future development could result in adverse impacts depending on the size and location of the facilities and the technology chosen to develop the lease. 

MakapplipotenimpoHowdeveadvethe sfacilichos

Some resources could be affected by the development and operation of commercial projects. Increased access would increase the possibility of 

Some resources could be affected by the development and operation of commercial projects. Increased access would increase the possibility of 

Some resources could be affected by the development and operation of commercial projects. Increased access would increase the possibility of 

Somaffecoperaprojeincre
TABLE 2.7-1 (Cont.) Resource Alternative 1: No Action. 2,017,714 Acres Currently Classified as Available for Leasing in Applicable Land Use Plans in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. No Land Use Plans Would Be Amended To Allow for Additional Oil Shale Developmenta Alternative 2: Conservation Focus (as modified for the Proposed Plan Amendment). Amend Land Use Plans To Identify 676,967 Acres of Federal Land in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming as Available for Application for Leasing for Commercial Oil Shale Developmentb Alternative 3: Research Lands Focus. Amend Land Use Plans To Identify 32,640 Acres of Federal Land in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming as Available for Application for Leasing for Commercial Oil Shale Developmentb A

De

1,

La

W

Ap

Indian Tribal Concerns (Cont.) destruction, vandalism, and intrusion into sacred sites. Surface mining, with the greatest potential for partial or complete destruction of places and resources important to tribes, would be allowed in parts of Utah and Wyoming. Split 

estate parcels on the Uintah and Ouray Ute reservation could be leased, which would affect surface use. 

destruction, vandalism, and intrusion into sacred sites. The largest land area is protected by surface use restrictions under this alternative. Split estate parcels on the Uintah and Ouray Ute Reservation could be leased, which would affect surface use. 

destruction, vandalism, and intrusion into sacred sites. The fewest resources are likely to be impacted. Split estate parcels on the Uintah and Ouray Ute Reservation would not be leased. 

destrintruestatOuraleasesurfa

Surface use restrictions on excluded areas would afford resources some protection. Required project-specific surveys, analyses, and consultation with affected Indian tribes could reduce impacts on resources within individual parcels. 

Required project-specific surveys, analyses, and consultation with affected Indian tribes could reduce impacts on resources within individual parcels. Certain parcels on the Uintah and Ute Reservation would not be available due to sage-grouse concerns. 

Required project-specific surveys, analyses, and consultation with affected Indian tribes could reduce impacts on resources within individual parcels. 

RequsurveconsuIndiaimpaindiv
TABLE 2.7-1 (Cont.) Resource Alternative 1: No Action. 2,017,714 Acres Currently Classified as Available for Leasing in Applicable Land Use Plans in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. No Land Use Plans Would Be Amended To Allow for Additional Oil Shale Developmenta Alternative 2: Conservation Focus (as modified for the Proposed Plan Amendment). Amend Land Use Plans To Identify 676,967 Acres of Federal Land in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming as Available for Application for Leasing for Commercial Oil Shale Developmentb Alternative 3: Research Lands Focus. Amend Land Use Plans To Identify 32,640 Acres of Federal Land in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming as Available for Application for Leasing for Commercial Oil Shale Developmentb A

De

1,

La

W

Ap

Socioeconomics Construction and operation associated with individual oil shale technologies, including the RD&D facilities, would have small to moderate impacts on employment, income, population, housing, public finances, and public service 

employment in the ROI in each state. Small to moderate impacts on property values and recreation would also occur, and water diversions would also affect agriculture. Rapid increases in population in-migration could impact quality of life, requiring a transition from traditional rural, to more urban lifestyles, and could potentially cause large social disruption impacts in some communities. 

Same as Alternative 1. Socioeconomic impacts could occur within the study area from amending land use plans; specifically, changes in property values could occur. 

Same as Alternative 1. Socioeconomic impacts could occur within the study area from amending land use plans; specifically, changes in property values could occur. 

Same Sociooccuamenspecivalue
TABLE 2.7-1 (Cont.) Resource Alternative 1: No Action. 2,017,714 Acres Currently Classified as Available for Leasing in Applicable Land Use Plans in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. No Land Use Plans Would Be Amended To Allow for Additional Oil Shale Developmenta Alternative 2: Conservation Focus (as modified for the Proposed Plan Amendment). Amend Land Use Plans To Identify 676,967 Acres of Federal Land in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming as Available for Application for Leasing for Commercial Oil Shale Developmentb Alternative 3: Research Lands Focus. Amend Land Use Plans To Identify 32,640 Acres of Federal Land in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming as Available for Application for Leasing for Commercial Oil Shale Developmentb A

De

1,

La

W

Ap

Environmental Justice Alternative 1 does not involve land use plan amendments. Minority or low-income populations within the study area would not incur any impacts from amending land use plans. Minority or low-income populations within the study area would not incur any impacts from amending land use plans. Mino

popuarea impaplans

Environmental and human health impacts on the general population are expected to be low. Construction and operation of the eight RD&D projects could have minor disproportionate impacts on minority and low-income populations, depending on their location, primarily associated with changes in quality of life and social disruption. Property value and visual impacts would depend on the location of land parcels impacted by oil shale projects. Impacts on minority and low-income populations would also depend on the importance of land parcels for subsistence, their cultural and religious 

Same as Alternative 1. Same as Alternative 1. Same 
TABLE 2.7-1 (Cont.) Resource Alternative 1: No Action. 2,017,714 Acres Currently Classified as Available for Leasing in Applicable Land Use Plans in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. No Land Use Plans Would Be Amended To Allow for Additional Oil Shale Developmenta Alternative 2: Conservation Focus (as modified for the Proposed Plan Amendment). Amend Land Use Plans To Identify 676,967 Acres of Federal Land in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming as Available for Application for Leasing for Commercial Oil Shale Developmentb Alternative 3: Research Lands Focus. Amend Land Use Plans To Identify 32,640 Acres of Federal Land in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming as Available for Application for Leasing for Commercial Oil Shale Developmentb A

De

1,

La

W

Ap

Environmental Justice (Cont.) significance, and their possible alternate economic uses for these populations. Larger scale oil shale project construction and operation could disproportionately impact minority and low-income 

populations depending on their location. Changes in quality of life and social disruption caused by rapid in-migration of population into rural communities would likely occur, thereby undermining local community social structures and requiring a transition to more urban life styles. The impacts of facility operations on air and water quality and on the demand for water for agriculture in the region could also cause environmental justice impacts. Land use and visual impacts would depend on the location of land parcels impacted by oil 

Same as Alternative 1. Same as Alternative 1. Same 
TABLE 2.7-1 (Cont.) Resource Alternative 1: No Action. 2,017,714 Acres Currently Classified as Available for Leasing in Applicable Land Use Plans in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. No Land Use Plans Would Be Amended To Allow for Additional Oil Shale Developmenta Alternative 2: Conservation Focus (as modified for the Proposed Plan Amendment). Amend Land Use Plans To Identify 676,967 Acres of Federal Land in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming as Available for Application for Leasing for Commercial Oil Shale Developmentb Alternative 3: Research Lands Focus. Amend Land Use Plans To Identify 32,640 Acres of Federal Land in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming as Available for Application for Leasing for Commercial Oil Shale Developmentb A

De

1,

La

W

Ap

Environmental Justice (Cont.) shale projects. Impacts on minority and low-income populations would also depend on the importance of land parcels for subsistence, their cultural and religious significance, and their possible alternate economic uses for 

these populations. 

Hazardous Materials and Waste Management 

Future commercial oil shale development within the potential lease areas in Alternative 1would use and generate hazardous materials and wastes. Hazardous materials would include fuels for equipment and heating, lubricating oils, solvents, and other industrial chemicals, as well as materials produced 

The use and generation of hazardous materials and wastes would be of the same nature as those identified for Alternative 1. 

The eight current and one proposed RD&D projects would use and generate similar types of hazardous materials and wastes. Hazardous materials would include fuels for equipment and heating, lubricating oils, solvents, and other industrial chemicals, as well as materials produced during oil shale processing. 

The uhazarwoulthose Alter
TABLE 2.7-1 (Cont.) Resource Alternative 1: No Action. 2,017,714 Acres Currently Classified as Available for Leasing in Applicable Land Use Plans in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. No Land Use Plans Would Be Amended To Allow for Additional Oil Shale Developmenta Alternative 2: Conservation Focus (as modified for the Proposed Plan Amendment). Amend Land Use Plans To Identify 676,967 Acres of Federal Land in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming as Available for Application for Leasing for Commercial Oil Shale Developmentb Alternative 3: Research Lands Focus. Amend Land Use Plans To Identify 32,640 Acres of Federal Land in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming as Available for Application for Leasing for Commercial Oil Shale Developmentb A

De

1,

La

W

Ap

Hazardous Materials and Waste Management (Cont.) during oil shale processing. Herbicides may also be used to clear and/or control vegetation at project locations and along utility ROWs. Commercial oil shale development may generate spent shale in large quantities if development by 

mining occurs; the shale would require management as a waste. The specific types and amounts and their handling and treatment would depend on the specific design of each commercial project. Waste materials would be similar among the eight current RD&D projects; these would include solids such as construction debris. Liquid wastes would include both sanitary and industrial wastewater. 

Herbicides may also be used to clear and/or control vegetation at project locations and along utility ROWs. Waste materials would also be similar among the RD&D projects; these would include solids such as construction debris. Liquid wastes would include both sanitary and industrial wastewater. Future commercial development within an RD&D PRLA involving mining would generate spent shale, which would require management as a waste. 
TABLE 2.7-1 (Cont.) Resource Alternative 1: No Action. 2,017,714 Acres Currently Classified as Available for Leasing in Applicable Land Use Plans in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. No Land Use Plans Would Be Amended To Allow for Additional Oil Shale Developmenta Alternative 2: Conservation Focus (as modified for the Proposed Plan Amendment). Amend Land Use Plans To Identify 676,967 Acres of Federal Land in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming as Available for Application for Leasing for Commercial Oil Shale Developmentb Alternative 3: Research Lands Focus. Amend Land Use Plans To Identify 32,640 Acres of Federal Land in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming as Available for Application for Leasing for Commercial Oil Shale Developmentb A

De

1,

La

W

Ap

Health and Safety The eight current RD&D projects and potential future commercial development of oil shale projects in the Alternative 1 lease area could result in health and safety impacts on workers. These impacts would be associated with accidents 

causing injuries and fatalities, possible hearing loss from high noise levels, and inhalation of particulates and/or volatiles emitted from the facilities. 

Potential health and safety impacts from the eight current RD&D projects and potential future commercial developments would be the same as those identified for Alternative 1. 

The construction and operation of the eight current and one potential RD&D projects could result in health and safety impacts on workers as described for Alternative 1. Injuries from all eight current RD&D projects are estimated at about 75 per year during construction and 40 per year during operations; less than 1 fatality per year is estimated for both construction and operations. The future commercial development of oil shale projects in the RD&D PRLAs would have the same types of health and safety impacts as would occur in association with the RD&D projects, but the potential incidence of those impacts would be greater. 

PotenimpaRD&futurdevesame Alter

Footnotes on next page. 
TABLE 2.7-1 (Cont.) Abbreviations: ACEC = Area of Critical Environmental Concern; AQRV = air quality related value; BLM = Bureau of Land Management; EPA = U

Protection Agency; ESA = Endangered Species Act of 1973; HMA = Herd Management Area; LWC = lands having wilderness characteristics; NEPEnvironmental Policy Act of 1969; NOx = nitrogen oxides; NWR = National Wildlife Refuge; O3 = ozone; PEIS = programmatic environmental imp

PFYC = Potential Fossil Yield Classification; PRLA = preference right lease area; RD&D = research, development, and demonstration; RMP = ResROI = region of influence; ROW = right-of-way; SRMA = Special Recreation Management Area; VOC = volatile organic compound; WSA = WildWSR = Wild and Scenic River. a The adverse impacts of the RD&D projects will be addressed through mitigation measures described in the environmental assessments (EAs) for 

EAs resulted in Findings of No Significant Impact (BLM 2006c–j; 2007b,c). b Under all alternatives, the nature, magnitude, and extent of project-related impacts of commercial development of oil shale on all resource areas 

location, and design of the individual projects. 
TABLE 2.7-2 Summary Comparison of Potential Environmental Impacts of Amending Land Use Plans To Identify Not Available for Application for Leasing for the Commercial Development of Tar Sands in Utah, and EnvironmenConstruction and Operation of Commercial Projects under the Four Alternatives Resource Alternative 1: No Action. 430,686 Acres of Federal Land in Utah Currently Classified as Available for Leasing. No Land Use Plans Would Be Amended To Allow for Additional Tar Sands Development Alternative 2: Conservation Focus (as modified for the Proposed Plan Amendment). Amend Land Use Plans To Identify 129,567 Acres of Federal Land in Utah as Available for Application for Leasing for Commercial Tar Sands Developmenta Alternative 3: Pending Commercial Lease. Identify 2,100 Acres of Federal Land in Utah as Available for Application for Leasing for Commercial Tar Sands Developmenta A

De

435,

i

Ap

Impacts Common to Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 NAb On the basis of the analysis in the PEIS, the BLM has determined that, with the 

socioeconomic analysis regarding potential impacts on property values, land us

not result in any impacts on the environment or socioeconomic setting. Howev

of commercial tar sands projects that could be approved after subsequent NEPA 

impacts on these resources. The types of impacts that could be associated with development are described in Chapter 5 of the PEIS. The magnitude of these pbe quantified at this time because key information about the location of commetechnologies that may be employed, the project size or production level, develomitigation measures that would be applied are unknown. 
TABLE 2.7-2 (Cont.) Resource Alternative 1: No Action. 430,686 Acres of Federal Land in Utah Currently Classified as Available for Leasing. No Land Use Plans Would Be Amended To Allow for Additional Tar Sands Development Alternative 2: Conservation Focus (as modified for the Proposed Plan Amendment). Amend Land Use Plans To Identify 129,567 Acres of Federal Land in Utah as Available for Application for Leasing for Commercial Tar Sands Developmenta Alternative 3: Pending Commercial Lease. Identify 2,100 Acres of Federal Land in Utah as Available for Application for Leasing for Commercial Tar Sands Developmenta A

De

435,

i

Ap

Land Use Future commercial tar sands development could affect current land use in the 430,686-acre Alternative 1 lease area. Current land uses such as grazing, recreation, wild horse and burro management, oil and gas production, and mineral extraction would be affected at 

locations where commercial tar sands projects (and supporting infrastructure) would be located. 

Potential impacts on land use from potential commercial development under this alternative would be similar to those identified for Alternative 1 but would potentially affect 129,567 acres of federal land and would substantially reduce the impact on sensitive resources including by removing from consideration for future leasing lands with sensitive resources that have been identified in BLM land use plans, LWC, and core or priority sage-grouse habitat. 

Potential impacts on land use from the proposed commercial tar sands lease would be similar to those identified for Alternative 1, would be substantially reduced, and would directly affect only 2,100 acres of federal land. 

Potenfrom develalternthose but w4,683 ACECadded would 

Additional land use changes would occur outside of lease areas on nonfederal lands where project support infrastructure (e.g., employer-provided housing, ROWs) would be constructed and where agricultural water is diverted from existing uses. Public lands outside of lease areas would also be affected by ROWs for roads, transmission lines, and pipelines. 

Additional land use changes would occur outside of lease areas on nonfederal lands where project support infrastructure (e.g., employer-provided housing, ROWs) would be constructed and where agricultural water is diverted from existing uses. Public lands outside of lease areas would also be affected by ROWs for roads, transmission lines, and pipelines. 

Additional land use changes would occur outside of lease areas on nonfederal lands where project support infrastructure (e.g., employer-provided housing, ROWs) would be constructed and where agricultural water is diverted from existing uses. Public lands outside of lease areas would also be affected by ROWs for roads, transmission lines, and pipelines. 

Additwould areas proje(e.g., housiconstagricufrom outsidbe afftransm
TABLE 2.7-2 (Cont.) Resource Alternative 1: No Action. 430,686 Acres of Federal Land in Utah Currently Classified as Available for Leasing. No Land Use Plans Would Be Amended To Allow for Additional Tar Sands Development Alternative 2: Conservation Focus (as modified for the Proposed Plan Amendment). Amend Land Use Plans To Identify 129,567 Acres of Federal Land in Utah as Available for Application for Leasing for Commercial Tar Sands Developmenta Alternative 3: Pending Commercial Lease. Identify 2,100 Acres of Federal Land in Utah as Available for Application for Leasing for Commercial Tar Sands Developmenta A

De

435,

i

Ap

Soil and Geologic Resources Future commercial tar sands development could affect soil and geologic resources in the Alternative 1 potential lease areas and at locations on nonfederal lands where project- related infrastructure (e.g., employer-provided housing) would be located. 

Potential impacts would be associated with the construction and operation of project facilities and related infrastructure and would include soil disturbance, soil removal and compaction, subsurface disturbance of geologic resources during drilling and mining, and increased erosion potential of exposed soils and geologic materials. 

Potential impacts on soil and geologic resources from commercial tar sands development would be similar to those identified for Alternative 1, but under Alternative 2, impacts could occur at fewer locations and in less geologically sensitive locations. 

Potential impacts on soil and geologic resources from development of the Asphalt Ridge STSA would be similar to those identified for Alternatives 1 and 2, but under Alternative 3, impacts would be limited geographically and in overall magnitude. 

Simil
TABLE 2.7-2 (Cont.) Resource Alternative 1: No Action. 430,686 Acres of Federal Land in Utah Currently Classified as Available for Leasing. No Land Use Plans Would Be Amended To Allow for Additional Tar Sands Development Alternative 2: Conservation Focus (as modified for the Proposed Plan Amendment). Amend Land Use Plans To Identify 129,567 Acres of Federal Land in Utah as Available for Application for Leasing for Commercial Tar Sands Developmenta Alternative 3: Pending Commercial Lease. Identify 2,100 Acres of Federal Land in Utah as Available for Application for Leasing for Commercial Tar Sands Developmenta A

De

435,

i

Ap

Paleontological Resources Impacts could include the destruction of paleontological resources and loss of valuable scientific information within development footprints, degradation and/or destruction of resources and their stratigraphic context within or near the development area, and increased 

potential for loss of exposed resources from looting or vandalism as a result of increased human access and related disturbance in sensitive areas. Such impacts could be reduced or eliminated by applying mitigation measures; therefore, adverse impacts are not expected. 

The types of potential impacts would be similar to those identified under Alternative 1. Such impacts could be reduced or eliminated by applying mitigation measures; therefore, adverse impacts are not expected. 

The types of potential impacts would be similar to those identified under Alternative 1. Such impacts could be reduced or eliminated by applying mitigation measures; therefore, adverse impacts are not expected. 

The tywould identiSuch or elimitigadverexpec

About 78% (335,396 acres) of designated acreage overlies geologic formations having a high potential to contain important paleontological resources (i.e., PFYC 4/5). 

About 90% (116,245 acres) of designated acreage overlies geologic formations having a high potential to contain important paleontological resources (i.e., PFYC 4/5). 

About 69% (1,458 acres) of designated acreage overlies geologic formations having a high potential to contain important paleontological resources (i.e., PFYC 4/5). 

Aboudesiggeolohigh pimporresou
TABLE 2.7-2 (Cont.) Resource Alternative 1: No Action. 430,686 Acres of Federal Land in Utah Currently Classified as Available for Leasing. No Land Use Plans Would Be Amended To Allow for Additional Tar Sands Development Alternative 2: Conservation Focus (as modified for the Proposed Plan Amendment). Amend Land Use Plans To Identify 129,567 Acres of Federal Land in Utah as Available for Application for Leasing for Commercial Tar Sands Developmenta Alternative 3: Pending Commercial Lease. Identify 2,100 Acres of Federal Land in Utah as Available for Application for Leasing for Commercial Tar Sands Developmenta A

De

435,

i

Ap

Water Resources Commercial tar sands development could impact water resources in the Alternative 1 potential lease areas and at locations on nonfederal lands where project-related infrastructure (e.g., employer- provided housing) would be located. Potential project-related 

impacts may include reduced water quality due to erosion and sedimentation, dewatering of local aquifers, and contamination of surface water or groundwater by accidental releases of hazardous materials. The Alternative 1 potential lease areas (including a 2-mi buffer zone) include about 185 mi of perennial streams that could be affected by commercial project development, or 68% of the perennial streams in the STSAs. 

Potential impacts on water resources from future construction and operation of commercial tar sands projects in the Alternative 2 potential lease areas would be similar to those identified for Alternative 1. Alternative 2 excludes from lease application about 200,000 acres of land that is currently identified in BLM land use plans as having steep slopes and/or fragile or highly erosive soils and included under Alternative 1. Thus, there is a reduced potential for erosionrelated impacts with commercial tar sands development under Alternative 2. The Alternative 2 potential lease areas (including a 2-mi buffer zone) include about 128 mi of perennial streams that could be affected by commercial project development, or 47% of the perennial streams in the STSAs. 

Potential impacts on water resources from development of the Asphalt Ridge STSA would be similar to those identified for Alternatives 1 and 2, but under Alternative 3, impacts would be limited geographically and in overall magnitude. No perennial streams flow through the STSA, thus reducing the likelihood of impacts on surface water quality. 

Simil
TABLE 2.7-2 (Cont.) Resource Alternative 1: No Action. 430,686 Acres of Federal Land in Utah Currently Classified as Available for Leasing. No Land Use Plans Would Be Amended To Allow for Additional Tar Sands Development Alternative 2: Conservation Focus (as modified for the Proposed Plan Amendment). Amend Land Use Plans To Identify 129,567 Acres of Federal Land in Utah as Available for Application for Leasing for Commercial Tar Sands Developmenta Alternative 3: Pending Commercial Lease. Identify 2,100 Acres of Federal Land in Utah as Available for Application for Leasing for Commercial Tar Sands Developmenta A

De

435,

i

Ap

Air Quality Commercial tar sands development could impact air quality in the Alternative 1 potential lease areas and at locations on nonfederal lands where project-related infrastructure (e.g., employer- provided housing) would be located. The construction and 

operation of future commercial tar sands projects could result in local and regional impacts on air quality and AQRVs, such as visibility and acid deposition. These impacts could result from heavy equipment and vehicle emissions, fugitive dust generation from construction and mining areas and along some access roads, and tar sands processing emissions. In addition, O3 precursors of NOx

and VOCs from tar sands development could exacerbate wintertime high-O3 occurrences 

already prevalent in the study area, especially in Uintah County, Utah. 

Commercial tar sands development could impact air quality in the Alternative 2 potential lease areas and at locations on nonfederal lands where project-related infrastructure (e.g., employerprovided housing) would be located. Potential local and regional impacts on air quality and AQRVs would be similar in nature to those identified for Alternative 1. However, Alternative 2 has approximately 340,000 fewer (about 79%) acres of land than Alternative 1 where future commercial tar sands development could occur and affect local or regional air quality and AQRVs. And, thus, the magnitude of potential impacts is anticipated to be far less than that for Alternative 1. 

The proposed commercial tar sands lease could impact air quality in the project area and at locations on nonfederal lands where project-related infrastructure (e.g., employerprovided housing) would be located. Potential local and regional impacts on air quality and AQRVs would be similar in nature to those identified for Alternative 1. However, because of its far smaller lease areas (about 0.5% of land for Alternative 1), the magnitude of potential impacts is anticipated to be minimal compared to that for Alternative 1. 

Commdevelqualitpotenlocatiwhere infrasprovilocateregionand AnaturidentiAlternappro(abouAlterncommdevelaffect qualit
TABLE 2.7-2 (Cont.) Resource Alternative 1: No Action. 430,686 Acres of Federal Land in Utah Currently Classified as Available for Leasing. No Land Use Plans Would Be Amended To Allow for Additional Tar Sands Development Alternative 2: Conservation Focus (as modified for the Proposed Plan Amendment). Amend Land Use Plans To Identify 129,567 Acres of Federal Land in Utah as Available for Application for Leasing for Commercial Tar Sands Developmenta Alternative 3: Pending Commercial Lease. Identify 2,100 Acres of Federal Land in Utah as Available for Application for Leasing for Commercial Tar Sands Developmenta A

De

435,

i

Ap

Air Quality (Cont.) Because of the need for project- and site-specific information, it is not possible to identify the nature and magnitude of regional air quality impacts from commercial development within the Alternative 1 potential lease areas. 

Noise Commercial tar sands 

development could affect noise levels in the Alternative 1 potential lease areas and at locations on nonfederal lands where project-related infrastructure (e.g., employerprovided housing) would be located. In most cases, noise is considered a local problem, not a regional problem. Localized noise levels (i.e., increased noise levels) could be affected by construction activities, mining, processing equipment, pipeline compressor stations, and vehicle traffic. 

Commercial tar sands development could impact noise levels in the Alternative 2 potential lease areas and at locations on nonfederal lands where project-related infrastructure (e.g., employerprovided housing) would be located. Localized noise impacts would be similar in nature and magnitude to those identified for Alternative 1. Changes in ambient noise levels due to project development could occur wherever a project is located within the 129,567 acres identified for application for 

The proposed commercial tar sands lease could affect noise levels in the Alternative 3 potential lease area and at locations on nonfederal lands where project-related infrastructure (e.g., employerprovided housing) would be located. Localized noise impacts would be similar in nature and magnitude than those identified for Alternative 1. Changes in ambient noise levels due to project development could occur wherever a project is located within the 2,100 acres identified for application for leasing under 

Commdevellevels potenlocatiwhere infrasprovilocateLocalbe simmagnfor Aambieprojewherewithin identi
TABLE 2.7-2 (Cont.) Resource Alternative 1: No Action. 430,686 Acres of Federal Land in Utah Currently Classified as Available for Leasing. No Land Use Plans Would Be Amended To Allow for Additional Tar Sands Development Alternative 2: Conservation Focus (as modified for the Proposed Plan Amendment). Amend Land Use Plans To Identify 129,567 Acres of Federal Land in Utah as Available for Application for Leasing for Commercial Tar Sands Developmenta Alternative 3: Pending Commercial Lease. Identify 2,100 Acres of Federal Land in Utah as Available for Application for Leasing for Commercial Tar Sands Developmenta A

De

435,

i

Ap

Noise (Cont.) Noise levels from tar sands development could exceed EPA guidelines for receptors in close proximity but would not be exceeded at farther receptor locations (e.g., beyond 0.5 mi). leasing under Alternative 2, which is about 30% of the amount of land available under Alternative 1. Alternative 3, which is only about 0.5% of land for Alternative 1. for le

which (abouAltern

Ecological Resources (resource subgroups summarized below) 

Ecological resources could be affected in areas available for application for leasing of tar sands resources. Impacts related to tar sands development may include wildlife disturbance, habitat loss, exposure to accidental releases of hazardous materials, the spread or establishment of invasive species, and the loss or injury of biota within physically disturbed areas related to the projects (including utility ROWs and access roads). 

Commercial tar sands development could impact ecological resources in Alternative 2 potential lease areas in the same manner as Alternative 1 but on approximately 301,000 fewer acres, some of which are excluded because of the presence of sensitive ecological resources. 

The proposed commercial tar sands lease could impact ecological resources in Alternative 3 potential lease areas in the same manner as Alternative 1 but on approximately 429,000 fewer acres of land. 

CommdevelecoloAlternareas Altern4,683 

Indirect impacts such as those related to surface and groundwater withdrawals could occur in more distant but hydrologically connected areas.

Indirect impacts would be the same as Alternative 1.

Indirect impacts would be the same as Alternative 1.

Indiresame 
TABLE 2.7-2 (Cont.) Resource Alternative 1: No Action. 430,686 Acres of Federal Land in Utah Currently Classified as Available for Leasing. No Land Use Plans Would Be Amended To Allow for Additional Tar Sands Development Alternative 2: Conservation Focus (as modified for the Proposed Plan Amendment). Amend Land Use Plans To Identify 129,567 Acres of Federal Land in Utah as Available for Application for Leasing for Commercial Tar Sands Developmenta Alternative 3: Pending Commercial Lease. Identify 2,100 Acres of Federal Land in Utah as Available for Application for Leasing for Commercial Tar Sands Developmenta A

De

435,

i

Ap

Aquatic Resources For Alternative 1, there are 20 perennial streams, totaling about 185 mi of perennial stream habitat within the lease areas (including a 2-mi buffer). The construction and operation of commercial tar sands projects within the potential leases areas could adversely affect aquatic 

resources by directly disturbing aquatic habitat or by contaminant inputs and surface water depletions resulting from groundwater and surface water use. The development of infrastructure, such as roads and ROWs, could increase public access to fishery resources. Potential impacts could result in habitat loss or degradation, affecting the abundance and distribution of aquatic biota in the affected habitats. 

For Alternative 2, there are 13 perennial streams, totaling about 128 mi of perennial stream habitat within the lease areas (including a 2-mi buffer). Potential types of impacts would be similar to those identified for Alternative 1 and could result in habitat loss or degradation, which could affect the abundance and distribution of aquatic biota in the affected habitats. 

For Alternative 3, there are no perennial streams within the proposed lease area (including a 2-mi buffer). Therefore, there are no direct impacts on aquatic habitats associated with this land use designation. However, impacts on aquatic biota could potentially occur from water depletions. 

For A20 peabout habita(incluPotenbe simAlternhabitawhich abundaquathabita
TABLE 2.7-2 (Cont.) Resource Alternative 1: No Action. 430,686 Acres of Federal Land in Utah Currently Classified as Available for Leasing. No Land Use Plans Would Be Amended To Allow for Additional Tar Sands Development Alternative 2: Conservation Focus (as modified for the Proposed Plan Amendment). Amend Land Use Plans To Identify 129,567 Acres of Federal Land in Utah as Available for Application for Leasing for Commercial Tar Sands Developmenta Alternative 3: Pending Commercial Lease. Identify 2,100 Acres of Federal Land in Utah as Available for Application for Leasing for Commercial Tar Sands Developmenta A

De

435,

i

Ap

Plant Communities and Habitats The construction and operation of commercial tar sands projects could impact plant communities and habitats that are present in the Alternative 1 potential lease areas. The potential lease areas include about 6,874 acres that have been identified for the protection of floodplains, 

riparian habitats, and special status plant species. Impacts could include the direct loss of vegetation from site clearing and grading; reduced habitat quality due to soil compaction, dewatering, water quality reduction, erosion, sedimentation, or accidental releases of hazardous materials; and the introduction or spread of invasive species. Utility and access road ROWs could also result in the fragmentation of some habitats. Alternative 1 areas also include a portion of 1 ACEC and are adjacent to or near 6 ACECs designated for sensitive plants or plant communities. 

The construction and operation of commercial tar sands projects could impact plant communities and habitats that occur in Alternative 2 potential lease areas. Potential impacts would be similar in nature to those identified for Alternative 1 but could occur in fewer locations. Alternative 2 areas do not include ACECs but are adjacent to or near 5 ACECs designated for sensitive or rare plants or rare plant communities. 

The construction and operation of commercial tar sands projects in prospective lease areas in the Asphalt Ridge STSA under Alternative 3 could affect plant communities and habitats. The areas available for application for leasing do not include land currently identified for the protection of riparian habitat, floodplains, or special status plant species. Alternative 3 areas are not in or near ACECs designated for sensitive plants or plant communities. 

The cof comcould and hAlternareascommoccur that hproteriparistatus impacnaturAlternmore areas are addesigplant 
TABLE 2.7-2 (Cont.) Resource Alternative 1: No Action. 430,686 Acres of Federal Land in Utah Currently Classified as Available for Leasing. No Land Use Plans Would Be Amended To Allow for Additional Tar Sands Development Alternative 2: Conservation Focus (as modified for the Proposed Plan Amendment). Amend Land Use Plans To Identify 129,567 Acres of Federal Land in Utah as Available for Application for Leasing for Commercial Tar Sands Developmenta Alternative 3: Pending Commercial Lease. Identify 2,100 Acres of Federal Land in Utah as Available for Application for Leasing for Commercial Tar Sands Developmenta A

De

435,

i

Ap

Wildlife The construction and operation of commercial tar sands projects could impact wildlife and their habitats where individual projects are located within the 430,686 acres currently classified as available for tar sands leasing. Wildlife habitats identified for spatial or temporal 

protection in BLM RMPs that would be present in the lease application areas include 7 acres of raptor nesting areas, 112,809 acres of elk crucial winter range, 26,804 acres of elk calving habitat, 96,564 acres of mule deer crucial winter range, 23,584 acres of mule deer fawning habitat, and 41,588 acres of mule deer migration corridor (these acreages are not additive as they do not account for habitat overlap among species or habitat types for a species). 

The construction and operation of commercial tar sands projects could impact wildlife and their habitats where individual projects are located within the 129,567 acres identified for tar sands leasing. There were no habitats for wildlife identified for spatial or temporal protection in BLM RMPs that would be present in the lease application areas. 

The construction and operation of the proposed commercial tar sands project could impact wildlife and their habitats where facilities are located within the 2,100 acres identified for tar sands leasing. Wildlife habitats identified for spatial or temporal protection in BLM RMPs that would be present in the lease application areas include 41 acres of mule deer fawning habitat. 

The cof comcould habitaproje435,3sands identiprotewould applicof rap112,8wintecalvinmule 23,58fawni41,58migraacreado nooverltypes 
TABLE 2.7-2 (Cont.) Resource Alternative 1: No Action. 430,686 Acres of Federal Land in Utah Currently Classified as Available for Leasing. No Land Use Plans Would Be Amended To Allow for Additional Tar Sands Development Alternative 2: Conservation Focus (as modified for the Proposed Plan Amendment). Amend Land Use Plans To Identify 129,567 Acres of Federal Land in Utah as Available for Application for Leasing for Commercial Tar Sands Developmenta Alternative 3: Pending Commercial Lease. Identify 2,100 Acres of Federal Land in Utah as Available for Application for Leasing for Commercial Tar Sands Developmenta A

De

435,

i

Ap

Wildlife (Cont.) A total of 228,122 acres of mule deer winter habitat, 77,172 acres of mule deer summer habitat, 194,354 acres of elk winter habitat, and 65,366 acres of elk summer habitat overlap lands that would be available for tar sands leasing. A total of 93,285 acres of mule deer winter habitat, 17,345 acres of mule deer summer habitat, 87,933 acres of elk winter habitat, and 17,412 acres of elk summer habitat overlap lands that would be available for tar sands leasing. No mule deer summer habitat or elk winter and summer habitats overlap tar sands areas included in Alternative 3. A total of 1,729 acres of mule deer winter habitat overlap lands that would be available for tar sands leasing. A tota

deer wof mu200,2habitasummthat wsands 

Potential impacts on wildlife and their habitats would be associated with site clearing and grading, operational noise and activities, accidental releases of hazardous materials, and increased human access to some habitats, and could result in reduced abundance and distribution of affected species. Construction and operation activities could also disturb wildlife in nearby locations and also fragment habitats along project-related ROWs. 

Overall, potential impacts on wildlife and their habitats would be similar in nature to those identified for Alternative 1, but tar sands leasing could occur in only about 21% of lands identified for Alternative 1. 

Overall, potential impacts on wildlife and their habitats would be similar in nature to those identified for Alternative 1, but tar sands leasing could occur in less than 0.5% of lands identified for Alternative 1. 

Overawildlbe simidenti
TABLE 2.7-2 (Cont.) Resource Alternative 1: No Action. 430,686 Acres of Federal Land in Utah Currently Classified as Available for Leasing. No Land Use Plans Would Be Amended To Allow for Additional Tar Sands Development Alternative 2: Conservation Focus (as modified for the Proposed Plan Amendment). Amend Land Use Plans To Identify 129,567 Acres of Federal Land in Utah as Available for Application for Leasing for Commercial Tar Sands Developmenta Alternative 3: Pending Commercial Lease. Identify 2,100 Acres of Federal Land in Utah as Available for Application for Leasing for Commercial Tar Sands Developmenta A

De

435,

i

Ap

Threatened and Endangered Species There are 71 federal candidate, BLM-designated sensitive, and state-listed species, and 22 federally listed threatened or endangered species could occur in areas that are available for leasing under Alternative 1. There are 63 federal candidate, BLM-designated sensitive, and state-listed species, and 21 federally listed threatened or endangered species could occur in areas that are available for leasing under Alternative 2. There are 36 federal candidate, BLM-designated sensitive, and state-listed species, and 8 federally listed threatened or endangered species could occur in areas that are available for leasing under Alternative 3. There 

BLMstate-23 fedendanin areleasin

Approximately 2,200 acres of designated critical habitat for the Mexican spotted owl and 86,057 acres of core habitat areas for the greater sage-grouse occur within lands identified for application for leasing under Alternative 1. 

Approximately 471 acres of designated critical habitat for the Mexican spotted owl occur within lands identified for application for leasing under Alternative 2. However, there are no core habitat areas for the greater sage-grouse in lands identified under Alternative 2. 

There are no designated critical habitats for ESA-listed species within lands identified for application for leasing under Alternative 3. However, approximately 2,100 acres of core habitat areas for the greater sage-grouse occur in lands identified under Alternative 3. 

ApprdesigMexi87,90for thwithin applicAltern

The construction and operation of commercial tar sands projects could impact threatened, endangered, and sensitive species and their habitats where individual projects are located within the 430,686 acres currently classified as available for application for leasing. 

The construction and operation of commercial tar sands projects could impact threatened, endangered, and sensitive species and their habitats where individual projects are located within the 129,567 acres identified for oil shale leasing. There were no habitats for 

The construction and operation of commercial tar sands projects could impact threatened, endangered, and sensitive species and their habitats where individual projects are located within the 2,100 acres identified for oil shale leasing. Habitats for threatened, endangered, or 

The cof comcould endanspeciindivwithin identiHabit
TABLE 2.7-2 (Cont.) Resource Alternative 1: No Action. 430,686 Acres of Federal Land in Utah Currently Classified as Available for Leasing. No Land Use Plans Would Be Amended To Allow for Additional Tar Sands Development Alternative 2: Conservation Focus (as modified for the Proposed Plan Amendment). Amend Land Use Plans To Identify 129,567 Acres of Federal Land in Utah as Available for Application for Leasing for Commercial Tar Sands Developmenta Alternative 3: Pending Commercial Lease. Identify 2,100 Acres of Federal Land in Utah as Available for Application for Leasing for Commercial Tar Sands Developmenta A

De

435,

i

Ap

Threatened and Endangered Species (Cont.) Habitats for threatened, endangered, or sensitive species identified for spatial or temporal protection in BLM RMPs that would be present in the lease application areas include 1,625 acres for Graham’s penstemon, 36 acres for the bald eagle, and 42,017 acres for the 

sage-grouse. 

threatened, endangered, or sensitive species identified for spatial or temporal protection in BLM RMPs that would be present in the lease application areas. 

sensitive species identified for spatial or temporal protection in BLM RMPs that would be present in the lease application areas include 1,638 acres for the sage-grouse. 

endanidentiprotewould applic1,625 pensteaglesage-

Visual Resources Commercial tar sands 

development could impact visual resources in the Alternative 1 lease areas and at locations on nonfederal lands where projectrelated infrastructure (e.g., employer-provided housing) would be located. Short- and long-term visual impacts may result with the construction and operation of the projects and would be associated with construction activities at each site and along associated ROWs. Additional visual impacts may be associated with the presence of site facilities 

Potential impacts from project construction and operation would be similar in nature to those identified for Alternative 1. There are no visually sensitive areas within the potential lease areas, while sensitive areas within 5 mi of the lease areas include 19 ACECs, 16 WSAs, 4 SRMAs, 1 NRA, and 5 Scenic Byways. These visually sensitive areas could be subject to large visual impacts from future commercial tar sands development within the Alternative 1 lease areas. 

Potential impacts from project construction and operation would be similar in nature to those identified for Alternative 1. Visually sensitive areas within the proposed tar sands lease area include 1 National Scenic Highway. Sensitive areas within 5 mi of the lease area include 2 National Scenic Highways. 

Potenconstwould those Visuathe pr1 SRMSensilease 21 ACeligib5 Sce
TABLE 2.7-2 (Cont.) Resource Alternative 1: No Action. 430,686 Acres of Federal Land in Utah Currently Classified as Available for Leasing. No Land Use Plans Would Be Amended To Allow for Additional Tar Sands Development Alternative 2: Conservation Focus (as modified for the Proposed Plan Amendment). Amend Land Use Plans To Identify 129,567 Acres of Federal Land in Utah as Available for Application for Leasing for Commercial Tar Sands Developmenta Alternative 3: Pending Commercial Lease. Identify 2,100 Acres of Federal Land in Utah as Available for Application for Leasing for Commercial Tar Sands Developmenta A

De

435,

i

Ap

Visual Resources (Cont.) within viewsheds and light pollution. Visually sensitive areas within the proposed lease areas include 4 ACECs, 1 SRMA, and 3 Scenic Byways. Sensitive areas within 5 mi of the 

lease areas include 18 ACECs, 19 WSAs, 5 SRMAs, 5 Scenic Byways, and 1 NRA. 

Cultural Resources Commercial tar sands 

development could impact cultural resources in the Alternative 1 potential lease areas and at locations on nonfederal lands where projectrelated infrastructure (e.g., employer-provided housing) would be located. Some of the land that would be available for application for leasing has been examined for cultural resources. Significant cultural resources were identified in these areas. Additional 

Commercial tar sands development could impact cultural resources in the Alternative 2 potential lease areas and at locations on nonfederal lands where projectrelated infrastructure (e.g., employer-provided housing) would be located. Some of the land that would be available for application for leasing has been examined for the presence of cultural resources. Some of the resources identified could be affected by 

Some of the 2,100 acres in the proposed tar sands lease have the potential to contain important cultural resources. Potential impacts on these resources from commercial tar sands development within the Alternative 3 potential lease areas would be similar to those identified for Alternative 1 but could occur in fewer locations. 

CommdevelculturAlternareas nonferelate(e.g., housiof the availaleasinculturculturin the
TABLE 2.7-2 (Cont.) Resource Alternative 1: No Action. 430,686 Acres of Federal Land in Utah Currently Classified as Available for Leasing. No Land Use Plans Would Be Amended To Allow for Additional Tar Sands Development Alternative 2: Conservation Focus (as modified for the Proposed Plan Amendment). Amend Land Use Plans To Identify 129,567 Acres of Federal Land in Utah as Available for Application for Leasing for Commercial Tar Sands Developmenta Alternative 3: Pending Commercial Lease. Identify 2,100 Acres of Federal Land in Utah as Available for Application for Leasing for Commercial Tar Sands Developmenta A

De

435,

i

Ap

Cultural Resources (Cont.) undiscovered resources are likely to exist in the unsurveyed portions of the potential lease areas. Important cultural resources could be affected by construction and operation of commercial projects within the potential lease areas. Potential impacts may include damage or 

destruction and increased potential for vandalism or theft due to increased human access. 

construction and operation of commercial projects within the potential lease areas. Potential impacts may include damage or destruction and increased potential for vandalism or theft due to increased human access. 

undisto exiportioareasresouconstcommpotenimpacdestrupotendue to 

Indian Tribal Concerns Making land available for 

application for leasing would not affect resources important to Indian tribes. However, leasing and future development could result in adverse impacts depending on the size and location of the facilities and the technology chosen to develop the lease. 

Making land available for application for leasing would not affect resources important to Indian tribes. However, leasing and future development could result in adverse impacts depending on the size and location of the facilities and the technology chosen to develop the lease. 

No tribal lands would be made available for leasing under Alternative 3. The development of the proposed 2,100-acre lease parcel would have the potential for the same kinds of effects discussed for Alternative 1, only on a much reduced scale. The degree of adverse impact resulting from development of this parcel would depend on the size and location of the facilities and the technology chosen to develop the parcel. 

Makiapplicaffect Indian and furesult depenlocatitechnlease. 
TABLE 2.7-2 (Cont.) Resource Alternative 1: No Action. 430,686 Acres of Federal Land in Utah Currently Classified as Available for Leasing. No Land Use Plans Would Be Amended To Allow for Additional Tar Sands Development Alternative 2: Conservation Focus (as modified for the Proposed Plan Amendment). Amend Land Use Plans To Identify 129,567 Acres of Federal Land in Utah as Available for Application for Leasing for Commercial Tar Sands Developmenta Alternative 3: Pending Commercial Lease. Identify 2,100 Acres of Federal Land in Utah as Available for Application for Leasing for Commercial Tar Sands Developmenta A

De

435,

i

Ap

Indian Tribal Concerns (Cont.) Some resources could be affected by the development and operation of commercial projects, which all involve widespread surface disturbance. Increased access would increase the possibility of damage, destruction, vandalism, and intrusion into sacred sites. This 

alternative makes the most land available for potential future development and includes only current land exclusions with surface use restrictions. Surface mining would be allowed. 

Some resources could be affected by the development and operation of commercial projects, which all involve widespread surface disturbance. Increased access would increase the possibility of damage, destruction, vandalism, and intrusion into sacred sites. This alternative makes significantly less land available, thus reducing the likelihood of adverse impacts. Surface mining would be allowed. 

Some affectoperaprojewidesIncrethe povandasacreexcluunder under minin

Required project-specific surveys, analyses, and consultation with affected Indian tribes could reduce impacts on resources within individual parcels. 

Required project-specific surveys, analyses, and consultation with affected Indian tribes could reduce impacts on resources within individual parcels. 

 Requ

surveconsutribes resouparce
TABLE 2.7-2 (Cont.) Resource Alternative 1: No Action. 430,686 Acres of Federal Land in Utah Currently Classified as Available for Leasing. No Land Use Plans Would Be Amended To Allow for Additional Tar Sands Development Alternative 2: Conservation Focus (as modified for the Proposed Plan Amendment). Amend Land Use Plans To Identify 129,567 Acres of Federal Land in Utah as Available for Application for Leasing for Commercial Tar Sands Developmenta Alternative 3: Pending Commercial Lease. Identify 2,100 Acres of Federal Land in Utah as Available for Application for Leasing for Commercial Tar Sands Developmenta A

De

435,

i

Ap

Socioeconomics Construction and operation associated with individual tar sands technologies would have small to moderate impacts on employment, income, population, housing, public finances, and public service employment in the ROI. Small to moderate impacts on property 

values and recreation would also occur, and water diversions would also affect agriculture. Rapid increases in population in-migration could impact quality of life, requiring a transition from traditional rural, to more urban lifestyles, and potentially cause large social disruption impacts. 

Socioeconomic impacts could occur within the study area from amending land use plans; specifically, changes in property values could occur. Potential project impacts would be similar to those identified for Alternative 1. 

Socioeconomic impacts could occur within the study area from amending land use plans; specifically, changes in property values could occur. Potential project impacts for the commercial tar sands lease would be similar to those identified for Alternative 1. 

Sociooccur amenspecivaluePotenbe simAltern
TABLE 2.7-2 (Cont.) Resource Alternative 1: No Action. 430,686 Acres of Federal Land in Utah Currently Classified as Available for Leasing. No Land Use Plans Would Be Amended To Allow for Additional Tar Sands Development Alternative 2: Conservation Focus (as modified for the Proposed Plan Amendment). Amend Land Use Plans To Identify 129,567 Acres of Federal Land in Utah as Available for Application for Leasing for Commercial Tar Sands Developmenta Alternative 3: Pending Commercial Lease. Identify 2,100 Acres of Federal Land in Utah as Available for Application for Leasing for Commercial Tar Sands Developmenta A

De

435,

i

Ap

Environmental Justice Tar sands project construction and operation would disproportionately impact minority and low-income populations depending on their location. Changes in quality of life caused by rapid in-migration of population into rural communities would likely occur, thereby undermining local 

community social structures and requiring a transition to more urban life styles. Social disruption would also occur. The impacts of facility operations on air and water quality and on the demand for water for agriculture in the region could also cause environmental justice impacts. Land use and visual impacts would depend on the location of land parcels impacted by tar sands projects. Impacts on minority and low-income populations would also depend on the importance of land parcels for subsistence, their cultural and religious significance, and their possible alternate economic uses to these populations.

Potential project impacts would be similar to those identified for Alternative 1. 

Impacts from the proposed commercial tar sands lease would be similar to those identified for Alternative 1. 

Potenbe simAltern
TABLE 2.7-2 (Cont.) Resource Alternative 1: No Action. 430,686 Acres of Federal Land in Utah Currently Classified as Available for Leasing. No Land Use Plans Would Be Amended To Allow for Additional Tar Sands Development Alternative 2: Conservation Focus (as modified for the Proposed Plan Amendment). Amend Land Use Plans To Identify 129,567 Acres of Federal Land in Utah as Available for Application for Leasing for Commercial Tar Sands Developmenta Alternative 3: Pending Commercial Lease. Identify 2,100 Acres of Federal Land in Utah as Available for Application for Leasing for Commercial Tar Sands Developmenta A

De

435,

i

Ap

Hazardous Materials and Waste Management Future commercial tar sands development within the Alternative 1 potential lease areas would use and generate similar types of hazardous materials and wastes. Spent tar sands may also be generated in large quantities if development by mining occurs; spent tar sands 

would require management as a waste. The specific types and amounts and their handling and treatment would depend on the specific design of each commercial project. 

For individual projects, the types and amounts of hazardous materials and wastes that could be used and generated during commercial tar sands development would be the same as those identified for Alternative 1. 

For the proposed tar sands project, the types and amounts of hazardous materials and wastes that could be used and generated during commercial tar sands development would be the same as those identified for Alternative 1. 

For inand amaterbe uscommdevelas thoAltern

Health and Safety Commercial tar sands project 

development may result in worker injuries or fatalities from accidents, possible hearing loss from high noise levels, and inhalation of particulates and/or VOCs. 

Potential health and safety impacts from project construction and operation would be similar to those identified for Alternative 1 and identical for projects with identical plans of development and located in common lease areas. 

Potential health and safety impacts from construction and operation of the proposed tar sands project would be similar to those identified for Alternative 1. 

Potenimpacconstwould identiidentiidentiand loareas

Footnotes on next page. 
TABLE 2.7-2 (Cont.) Abbreviations: ACEC = Area of Critical Environmental Concern; AQRV = air quality related value; BLM = Bureau of Land Management; EPA = U

Protection Agency; ESA = Endangered Species Act of 1973; HMA = Herd Management Area; NEPA = National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

NRA = National Recreation Area; O3 = ozone; PEIS = programmatic environmental impact statement; PFYC = Potential Fossil Yield Classification

development, and demonstration; RMP = Resource Management Plan; ROI = region of influence; ROW = right-of-way; SRMA = Special RecreatioSTSA = Special Tar Sands Area; VOC = volatile organic compound; WSR = Wild and Scenic River. a Under all alternatives, the nature, magnitude, and extent of project-related impacts of commercial development of tar sands on all resource areas 

location, and design of the individual projects. b NA = not applicable. 
Final OSTS PEIS 2-138 

2.8 REFERENCES 

Note to Reader: This list of references identifies Web pages and associated URLs where 

reference data were obtained. It is likely that at the time of publication of this PEIS, some of 

these Web pages may no longer be available or their URL addresses may have changed. 

BLM (Bureau of Land Management), 1984, Utah Combined Hydrocarbon Leasing Regional 

Final EIS: Volume I, Regional Analyses, Richfield District Office, Richfield, Utah, June. 

BLM, 1987, Grand Junction Resource Area Resource Management Plan and Record of 

Decision, Grand Junction District, Colo., Jan. 

BLM, 1988, Record of Decision and Resource Management Plan, Glenwood Springs Resource 

Area, Grand Junction District, Colo., June. 

BLM, 1997a, Record of Decision and Green River Resource Management Plan, Green River 

Resource Area, Rock Springs District Office, Wyo., Oct. 

BLM, 1997b, White River Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan, White 

River Resource Area, Colo., Craig District, Meeker, Colo., July. 

BLM, 2005, Land Use Planning Handbook, BLM Handbook H-1601-1, Washington, D.C., 

March. 

BLM, 2006a, Record of Decision and Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan/Proposed 

Green River Resource Management Plan Amendment, Rock Springs Field Office, Wyo., July. 

BLM, 2006b, Roan Plateau Planning Area, Including Former Naval Oil Shale Reserves 

Numbers 1 & 3, Resource Management Plan Amendment & Environmental Impact Statement, 

Final, Colorado State Office, Aug. Available at http://www.blm.gov/rmp/co/roanplateau/ 

final_eis_document.htm. 

BLM, 2006c, Environmental Assessment, Chevron Oil Shale Research, Development & 

Demonstration, CO-110-2006-120-EA, White River Field Office, Meeker, Colo., Nov. 

BLM, 2006d, Finding of No Significant Impact and Decision Record, COC 69165, Chevron 

U.S.A. Oil Shale Research, Development and Demonstration, for Environmental Assessment 

CO-110-2006-120-EA, White River Field Office, Meeker, Colo., Nov. 9. 

BLM, 2006e, Environmental Assessment, EGL Resources, Inc., Oil Shale Research, 

Development and Demonstration Tract, CO-110-2006-118-EA, White River Field Office, 

Meeker, Colo., Oct. 

BLM, 2006f, Finding of No Significant Impact and Decision Record, COC 69169, EGL 

Resources, Inc., Oil Shale Research, Development and Demonstration Tract, for Environmental 

Assessment CO-110-2006-118-EA, White River Field Office, Meeker, Colo., Nov. 9. 
Final OSTS PEIS 2-139 

BLM, 2006g, Environmental Assessment, Shell Oil Shale Research, Development and 

Demonstration Projects, Rio Blanco County, Colorado, CO-110-2006-117-EA, White River 

Field Office, Meeker, Colo., Nov. 

BLM, 2006h, Finding of No Significant Impact/Decision Record, Site 1, COC-69167, Oil Shale 

Test Site, Shell Frontier Oil and Gas Inc., Oil Shale Research, Development and Demonstration 

Pilot, for Environmental Assessment CO-110-2006-117-EA, White River Field Office, Meeker, 

Colo., Nov. 9. 

BLM, 2006i, Finding of No Significant Impact/Decision Record, Site 2, COC-69166, Oil Shale 

Test Site, Shell Frontier Oil and Gas Inc., Oil Shale Research, Development and Demonstration 

Pilot, for Environmental Assessment CO-110-2006-117-EA, White River Field Office, Meeker, 

Colo., Nov. 9. 

BLM, 2006j, Finding of No Significant Impact/Decision Record, Site 3, COC-69194, Oil Shale 

Test Site, Shell Frontier Oil and Gas Inc., Oil Shale Research, Development and Demonstration 

Pilot, for Environmental Assessment CO-110-2006-117-EA, White River Field Office, Meeker, 

Colo., Nov. 9. 

BLM, 2007a, Record of Decision for the Approval of Portions of the Roan Plateau Management 

Plan Amendment and Environmental Impact Statement, Glenwood Springs Field Office, Colo., 

June. 

BLM, 2007b, Environmental Assessment, Oil Shale Research, Development and Demonstration 

Project, White River Mine, Uintah County, Utah, UT-080-06-280, Vernal Field Office, Vernal, 

Utah, April. 

BLM, 2007c, Finding of No Significant Impact/Decision Record, Oil Shale Exploration 

Company, Oil Shale Research, Development and Demonstration Project, UTU-84087, Location: 

White River Mine, Uintah County, Utah, for Environmental Assessment UT-080-06-280-EA, 

Vernal Field Office, Vernal, Utah, April 30. 

BLM, 2008a, Proposed Oil Shale and Tar Sands Resource Management Plan Amendments to 

Address Land Use Allocation in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming and Final Programmatic 

Environmental Impact Statement, FES 08-32, Sept. Available at http://ostseis.anl.gov/. 

BLM, 2008b, Approved Resource Management Plan Amendments/Record of Decision (ROD) for 

Oil Shale and Tar Sands Resources To Address Land Use Allocations in Colorado, Utah, and 

Wyoming and Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, Nov., 17. 

BLM, 2008c, Record of Decision for the Resource Management Plan Amendment for Portions of 

the Roan Plateau Planning Area Designated as Areas of Critical Environmental Concern Public 

Lands in Garfield County, CO, March.

BLM, 2008d, Proposed Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement, 

Monticello Field Office, Utah, Aug. 
Final OSTS PEIS 2-140 

BLM, 2008e, Proposed Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

for the Price Field Office, Price Field Office, Utah, Aug. 

BLM, 2008f, Richfield Field Office Proposed Resource Management Plan & Final 

Environmental Impact Statement, Richfield Field Office, Utah, Aug. 

BLM, 2008g, Proposed Resource Management Plan Revision and Final Environmental Impact 

Statement for the Vernal Field Office Planning Area, Vernal Field Office, Utah, Aug. 

BLM, 2008h, Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan, Rawlins District 

Office, Great Divide Resource Area, Wyo. 

BLM, 2010, Record of Decision for the Kemmerer Resource Management Plan and Rangeland 

Program Summary Document, Kemmerer Resource Area, Rock Springs District, Wyo. 

DOI (U.S. Department of the Interior), 1968, “Oil and Gas Leases for Lands in Oil Shale Areas,” 

Federal Register, Vol. 33, No. 193, Oct. 2. 

Donnell J.R., 1987, “Storehouse of Energy Minerals in the Piceance Basin,” in Oil Shale, Water 

Resources, and Valuable Minerals of the Piceance Basin, Colorado: The Challenge and Choices 

of Development, O.J. Taylor (editor), U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1310. 

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 1974, Information on Levels of Environmental 

Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety, 

EPA 550/9-74-004, Office of Noise Abatement and Control, Washington, D.C., March. 

ExxonMobil, 2011, Oil Shale Research, Development and Demonstration (RD&D) Lease Plan 

of Operation, ExxonMobil Upstream Research Company, Houston, Tex. 

Meyer, R., 1995, “Bitumen,” in Encyclopedia of Energy Technology and the Environment, 

Vol. 1, A. Bisio and S. Boots (editors), John Wiley & Sons, New York, N.Y. 

Natural Soda Holdings Inc., 2011, 2011 Plan of Operation, Oil Shale Research, Development 

and Demonstration (RD&D), Tract COC 74299, prepared by Daub & Associates, Inc., Grand 

Junction, Colo., for Natural Soda Holdings, Inc., Piceance Creek Basin, Rio Blanco County, 

Colo. 

Tabet, D., 2007, personal communication from Tabet (Utah Geological Survey, Salt Lake City, 

Utah) to S.J. Thompson (Bureau of Land Management, Washington, D.C., Office), Dec. 14. 

USDC Colorado, 2011, United States District Court for the District of Colorado, Case 1:09-cv00085-JLK, Document 63-1, filed Feb. 15, 2011. 

USGS (U.S. Geological Survey), 1980a, Argyle CanyonWillow Creek, Utah Tar Sand Leasing 

Minutes No. 9, Minutes of the Mineral Land Evaluation Committee, Nov. 10. 
Final OSTS PEIS 2-141 

USGS, 1980b, Asphalt RidgeWhiterocks and Vicinity, Utah Tar Sand Leasing Minutes No. 3, 

Minutes of the Mineral Land Evaluation Committee, Sept. 23. 

USGS, 1980c, Circle Cliffs East and West Flanks, Utah Tar Sand Leasing Minutes No. 5, 

Minutes of the Mineral Land Evaluation Committee, Sept. 23. 

USGS, 1980d, Hill Creek, Utah Tar Sand Leasing Minutes No. 6, Minutes of the Mineral Land 

Evaluation Committee, Nov. 10. 

USGS, 1980e, Pariette, Utah Tar Sand Leasing Minutes, Minutes of the Mineral Land 

Evaluation Committee, Nov. 10. 

USGS, 1980f, P.R. Spring, Utah Tar Sand Leasing Minutes, Minutes of the Mineral Land 

Evaluation Committee, Sept. 23. 

USGS, 1980g, Raven RidgeRim Rock and Vicinity, Utah Tar Sand Leasing Minutes No. 8, 

Minutes of the Mineral Land Evaluation Committee, Nov. 10 

USGS, 1980h, San Rafael Swell, Utah Tar Sand Leasing Minutes No. 7, Minutes of the Mineral 

Land Evaluation Committee, Nov. 10. 

USGS, 1980i, Sunnyside and Vicinity, Utah Tar Sand Leasing Minutes No. 4, Minutes of the 

Mineral Land Evaluation Committee, Sept. 23. 

USGS, 1980j, Tar Sand Triangle, Utah Tar Sand Leasing Minutes No. 2, Minutes of the Mineral 

Land Evaluation Committee, Sept. 23. 

USGS, 1980k, White Canyon, Utah Tar Sand Leasing Minutes No. 11, Minutes of the Mineral 

Land Evaluation Committee, Nov. 10. 

USGS, 2010a, Oil Shale and Nahcolite Resources of the Piceance Basin, Colorado, National Oil 

and Gas Assessment Project, Digital Data Series DDS–69–Y, U.S. Geological Survey Oil Shale 

Assessment Team. 

USGS 2010b, Oil Shale Resources of the Uinta Basin, Utah and Colorado, National Oil and Gas 

Assessment Project, Digital Data Series DDS–69–BB, U.S. Geological Survey Oil Shale 

Assessment Team.

USGS, 2011, Oil Shale Resources of the Eocene Green River Formation, Greater Green River 

Basin, Wyoming, Colorado, and Utah, National Oil and Gas Assessment Project, Digital Data 

Series DDS–69–DD, U.S. Geological Survey Oil Shale Assessment Team.

U.S. President, 1930, “Withdrawal of Public Oil-Shale Deposits, and Lands Containing Same for 

Investigation, Examination, and Classification,” Executive Order 5327, April 15. 
Final OSTS PEIS 2-142 

U.S. President, 1978, “Federal Compliance with Pollution Control Standards,” Executive Order 

12088, Federal Register 43: 47707, Oct. 17. 

U.S. President, 1994, “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income Populations,” Executive Order 12898, Federal Register 59:7629, 

Feb. 11. 

U.S. President, 1997, “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks,” Executive Order 13045, Federal Register 62:19883–19888, April 23. 

U.S. President, 2000, “Greening of Government through Leadership in Environmental 

Management,” Executive Order 13148, Federal Register 65:24595, April 20. 

 

Wiig, S., 2006a, personal communication from Wiig (BLM Rock Springs Field Office, Wyo.) to 

P. Perlewitz (BLM Wyoming State Office, Cheyenne, Wyo.), June 13.

Wiig, S., 2006b, personal communication from Wiig (BLM Rock Springs Field Office, Wyo.) to 

K.P. Smith (Argonne National Laboratory, Lakewood, Colo.), June 27. 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-1 

3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

 This PEIS provides an assessment of environmental, social, and economic issues at a 

programmatic level and not at the lease and project development level. The descriptions of the 

affected environment presented in this chapter do not provide detailed information about 

conditions at specific project locations. These descriptions provide the level of detail needed to 

assess the types of possible impacts that may occur because of potential oil shale or tar sands 

resource leasing and development on BLM-administered lands. 

3.1 LAND USE 

 This section describes the wide range of land uses that occur on BLM-administered 

lands and other lands within the study area. General information about the management of 

BLM-administered lands is presented in the context of each BLM field office and administrative 

unit that has jurisdiction over the oil shale and tar sands resources evaluated in this PEIS. 

Additional information is presented about other federal lands that coincide with oil shale and tar 

sands resources, and general information is presented about the use of other federal and state 

lands in the area. A description of the management of BLM-administered lands is presented in 

Section 2.2.3. 

 Decisions within this PEIS apply only to lands administered by the BLM. Tables 2.3-1 

and 2.4-1 in Chapter 2 identify the total acreage included within the study area for the PEIS. 

The total acreage included in the most geologically prospective areas for oil shale and tar sands 

(the STSAs) is approximately 4.5 million surface acres. The BLM administers approximately 

2.7 million surface acres of this total, or approximately 60%. The remaining 40% of acres are 

owned by states, tribes, local governments, and private individuals and corporations, or are 

administered by other federal agencies (e.g., the USFWS and NPS). These lands are interspersed 

throughout the study areas, and activities on all of these lands have the potential to affect lands 

owned or managed by others. Figures 2.3.3-1, 2.3.3-2, and 2.3.3-3 in Chapter 2 illustrate how 

these lands are interspersed. Privately owned lands within the study areas total approximately 

870,000 acres or 19%. Much of the privately owned land derived from the operation of the many 

and varied federal public land laws that were designed and intended to facilitate settlement of the 

West. The pattern of private ownership tends to concentrate along rivers, streams, and other 

sources of perennial water; at the intersections of historical travel routes; and in areas of more 

fertile farm and ranch lands. Both historically and today, private lands and communities have had 

strong economic, cultural, and social ties to the federally managed lands that surround them. 

Uses on these federal lands are of extremely high interest to local communities and also, 

increasingly, to populations that are far removed from them. 

3.1.1 BLM Land Use Plans within the Study Area 

 Table 3.1.1-1 lists the BLM field offices and administrative units with jurisdiction over 

areas containing the oil shale and tar sands resources evaluated in this PEIS. The table includes 
TABLE 3.1.1-1 BLM Field Offices and Administrative Units, Existing Land Use Plans, and Estimated Surface 

Overlying the Most Geologically Prospective Oil Shale Resources and STSAs Field Office Existing Land Use Plan Estimated Surface Overlyin

(acres)a Oil Shale 

BLM Split Estateb 

Colorado Colorado River Valleyc Glenwood Springs RMP (BLM 1988, as amended by the Roan Plateau Plan Amendment [BLM 2007a, 2008a]) 10,442 3,715 

Grand Junction Grand Junction RMP (BLM 1987a) 181 3,843 White River White River RMP (BLM 1997a, as amended by the Roan Plateau Plan Amendment [BLM 2007a, 2008a]) 309,086 34,382 

Colorado total 319,710 41,940 

Utah

Grand Staircase–Escalante 

National Monumentd

Grand Staircase

Escalante National Monument Management 

Plan (BLM 1999a) 

0 0 

Monticello Monticello RMP (BLM 2008f) 0 0 

Price Price RMP (BLM 2008e) 107 0 1

Richfield Richfield RMP (BLM 2008i) 0 0 

Vernale,f Vernal RMP (BLM 2008d) 560,864 77,220 2

Utah total 560,972 77,220 5

Wyoming

Kemmerer Kemmerer RMP (BLM 2010a) 221,358 2,313 Rawlins Rawlins RMP (BLM 2008c) 80,492 0 Rock Springsc Green River RMP (BLM 1997b, as amended by the 

Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan [BLM 2006b]) 

955,829 37,093 

Wyoming total 1,257,680 39,406 

Footnotes on next page.
TABLE 3.1.1-1 (Cont.) a Estimated acreages were calculated from GIS data compiled to support the PEIS analyses. b Split estate lands include areas where the federal government owns, and the BLM administers, the subsurface mineral rights, 

estate is owned by tribes, states, or private parties. c Planning efforts are underway to revise or replace the plan(s) in this field office. d Although lands within the GSENM would be excluded from future leasing for tar sands development, they are included in th

they overlie the Circle Cliffs STSA. Potential commercial tar sands leasing and development in the GSENM, however, is no

PEIS. e A portion of the P.R. Spring STSA extends south from the Vernal Field Office boundary into the Moab Field Office boundar

area is administered by the Vernal Field Office under an MOU with the Moab Field Office. Under this agreement, the Vernaadministers all resources and programs, including land use planning, for the entire P.R. Spring STSA. Therefore, the Moab Fnot impacted by this PEIS. f Split estate lands within the Hill Creek Extension of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation coincide with oil shale and tar sands 

Vernal Field Office. The split estate acreage estimate for oil shale in the Vernal Field Office includes approximately 57,705 within the Hill Creek Extension. The split estate acreage estimate for tar sands in the Vernal Field Office includes approximaof lands within the Hill Creek Extension. 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-4 

the names of the existing land use plans and estimates of the total acreage of BLM-administered 

and split estate lands that coincide with the most geologically prospective oil shale areas and 

STSAs being evaluated in this PEIS. As discussed in Section 1.4.3, management decisions 

contained in these existing BLM land use plans have been incorporated into the analyses 

conducted in this PEIS. In turn, the ROD resulting from the final PEIS may amend these land 

use plans to incorporate management decisions related to making land available or not available 

for application for commercial leasing and development of oil shale and tar sands resources. 

Figure 3.1.1-1 shows the distribution of public lands administered by the BLM within the region 

where the oil shale and tar sands resources are located. 

 The following sections provide an overview of each administrative unit that falls within 

the PEIS study area and the corresponding land use plan(s). Information about ongoing planning 

activities and the status of each land use plan is presented. In addition, information about 

specially designated areas and land uses (e.g., energy and mineral development activities, 

grazing, recreational use, and ROW authorizations) is presented for those areas that coincide 

with the oil shale or tar sands resources or could be impacted by their commercial leasing and 

development. Some of these activities, such as grazing and recreational use, are widespread and 

dispersed across all planning areas. Similarly, ROW authorizations are extensive in some 

planning areas. The information presented in these sections is not exhaustive; individual land use 

plans provide more complete descriptions of land use. 

3.1.1.1 Colorado River Valley Field Office, Colorado (formerly the Glenwood 

Springs Field Office) 

 The Glenwood Springs RMP (BLM 1984) was first issued in 1984 and included the most 

geologically prospective oil shale area within the Colorado River Valley Field Office that is of 

interest in this PEIS. This plan was amended numerous times through 2007; at that point, almost 

all of the most geologically prospective oil shale area was included in the Roan Plateau RMP 

Amendment that was completed in 2007 and amended in 2008. Some of the amendments to the 

Glenwood Springs RMP are still relevant and are discussed below. The BLM administers 

approximately 66,934 surface acres and 73,602 acres of mineral estate within the planning area 

encompassed by the Roan Plateau RMP Amendment (Figure 3.1.1-2). The oil shale resources are 

located within the Piceance Basin; no tar sands resources are located within the jurisdiction of 

this field office. The Oil Shale and Tar Sands PEIS and ROD made land use plan decisions 

regarding areas available for application for oil shale leasing within the field office. 

 Most of the oil shale resource included in the most geologically prospective area within 

the field office is included in the Naval Oil Shale Reserves (NOSRs) Nos. 1 and 3, which were 

transferred from the DOE to BLM administration pursuant to the Department of Defense 

Authorization Act of 1998 (P.L. 105-85). NOSRs 1 and 3 are also completely contained within 

the Roan Plateau Planning Area. A total of 55,354 acres of land were involved in the transfer, 

including 36,362 acres in NOSR 1 and 18,992 acres in NOSR 3. The Act required the DOI to 

make these lands available for leasing for oil and gas development, and stipulated that leasing 

occur within the developed tract of NOSR 3 within 1 year. The 1999 RMP amendment 

(BLM 1999b) addressed leasing on 12,029 acres of land within NOSR 3. The Roan Plateau RMP 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-5 

FIGURE 3.1.1-1 Distribution of BLM-, NPS-, USFS-, and USFWS-Administered Lands with 

Respect to Oil Shale and Tar Sands Resources 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-6 

FIGURE 3.1.1-2 BLM Planning Areas in Colorado Where Oil Shale Resources Are Located 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-7 

Amendment, for which a Final EIS was issued in 2006 (BLM 2006a), was prepared to develop 

an integrated management strategy that incorporates the transferred NOSRs into the remainder of 

BLM-administered land in the planning area and establishes a unified set of goals, objectives, 

and land use or management actions. The RMP amendment, which was approved by an ROD 

issued in 2007 (BLM 2007a) and one issued in 2008 (BLM 2008a), establishes the Roan Plateau 

Planning Area as an area of 127,007 acres, encompassing NOSRs 1 and 3 (55,354 acres), other 

BLM-administered lands (18,248 acres of federal surface and split estate lands), and nonfederal 

lands (53,405 acres) (Figure 3.1.1-2). The 2008 amendment to the Roan Plateau RMP 

amendment established new ACECs within the plan area. While a portion of the Roan Plateau 

Planning Area extends into the White River Field Office boundary, the Colorado River Valley 

Field Office will have jurisdiction over management of the entire planning area. 

 The 2008 Oil Shale and Tar Sands (OSTS) PEIS and ROD made land use plan decisions 

regarding areas available for application for oil shale leasing within the field office. The 2008 

OSTS ROD erroneously proposed opening the lands in NOSRs 1 and 3 to oil shale leasing; 

however, the lands were not opened, as there is a withdrawal on the transferred lands that 

prevents the lands from being leased for oil shale development, and no opening order has been 

issued. Consequently, in the current PEIS, that error is being corrected and the areas within the 

NOSR will be correctly identified as being unavailable for application for commercial oil shale 

leasing. A small portion of the NOSR extends into the White River Field Office, and that portion 

of the oil shale resource is also unavailable for application for oil shale leasing. Another small 

portion of the oil shale resource that is within the Colorado River Valley Field Office but west of 

the NOSR would continue to be available for application for leasing under the No Action 

Alternative. 

 In 2001, the Glenwood Springs RMP was amended to support revocation of existing 

withdrawals, with the exception of NOSRs 1 and 3, of deposits of oil shale and public lands 

containing such deposits from leasing or other disposal—these withdrawals had been put in place 

in order to protect the oil shale resource pending further study and classification (BLM 2001a). 

The withdrawals were no longer considered necessary because existing regulations, policies, and 

land use decisions were adequate to manage the oil shale resources. 

 Other energy and mineral development on lands managed by the Colorado River Valley 

Field Office includes oil and gas, and coal. In the 1988 RMP, most of the lands in the field office 

region were designated as open to mineral leasing and development. Oil and gas are the principal 

resources overlapping the oil shale resources being evaluated in this PEIS. In 1991 and again in 

1999, in response to increased oil and gas development activities, the RMP was amended to 

facilitate orderly, economic, and environmentally sound exploration and development of these 

resources. Under the 1999 amendment (BLM 1999b), lands within WSAs (27,760 acres) were 

closed to all oil and gas leasing. In addition, No Surface Occupancy (NSO), Timing Limitation 

(TL), and Controlled Surface Use (CSU) stipulations were identified to be attached to oil and gas 

leases to protect specific areas or resources, such as riparian and wetlands areas, rivers, sensitive 

species, viewsheds, and watersheds. 

 The Colorado River Valley Field Office administers grazing on allotments that cover a 

significant portion of the planning area. Recreation sites have been established in areas of heavy 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-8 

recreational use; larger areas of dispersed but heavy recreational use have been identified and 

designated as SRMAs. None of the designated recreation sites or SRMAs are located in areas 

overlying the oil shale resources being evaluated in this PEIS. ROW authorizations exist within 

the planning area and may be in an area that could be affected by oil shale leases. 

 Several WSAs have been designated in the planning area; however, they are located in 

the eastern part of the area, away from the oil shale resources. There were areas identified by 

the BLM in the Roan Plateau Planning Area as containing wilderness characteristics, but the 

decision was made in the 2007 ROD that these areas would not be specifically managed to 

maintain these wilderness characteristics. A A number of ACECs have been designated within 

the Colorado River Valley Field Office boundary (Figure 3.1.1-2). Four of these ACECs are 

located within the Roan Plateau Planning Area, as defined in the Roan Plateau Plan Amendment 

(BLM 2006a).1 Two of them overlap with the oil shale resources being evaluated in this PEIS 

(Table 3.1.1-2). In addition, the Roan Plateau Plan Amendment and ROD (BLM 2006a, 2007a) 

established the Parachute Creek Watershed Management Area, encompassing an area of 

33,575 acres, on top of the plateau that overlaps a portion of the most geologically prospective 

oil shale resource. Stipulations restricting surface-disturbance activities have been established in 

the Roan Plateau RMP Amendment for portions of these ACECs and for the watershed 

management area (BLM 2006a, 2007a, 2008a). Other ACECs within the Roan Plateau planning 

area do not overlap with oil shale resources. 

 The BLM has identified rivers and corridors within the Roan Plateau Planning Area as 

being eligible for designation as WSRs (BLM 2006a). Portions of the eligible Trapper Creek, 

Northwater Creek, and East Fork Parachute Creek, shown in Figure 3.1.1-2, overlie the oil shale 

study area. 

3.1.1.2 Grand Junction Field Office, Colorado 

 The Grand Junction RMP (BLM 1987a) was first issued in 1987 and has been amended 

numerous times. The Grand Junction Field Office is in the process of revising the Grand Junction 

RMP. The BLM administers approximately 1.2 million acres within the planning area 

encompassed by this RMP; however, only a small portion of the planning area overlaps with the 

oil shale resources evaluated in this PEIS (Figure 3.1.1-2). The oil shale resources are located 

within the Piceance Basin; no known tar sands resources are located within the boundaries of this 

field office. The 2008 OSTS PEIS and ROD made land use plan decisions regarding areas 

available for application for oil shale leasing within the field office. 

 In 2001, the Grand Junction RMP was amended to support revocation of previous 

withdrawals of deposits of oil shale and public lands containing such deposits from leasing or 

other disposal. Such withdrawals had been in place in order to protect the oil shale resource, 

pending further study and classification (BLM 2001a). The withdrawals were no longer 

 

1 The Roan Plateau ROD issued in 2007 approved only portions of the proposed plan amendments in BLM 2006a. 

A second ROD finalizing establishment of these ACECs was completed in 2008 (BLM 2008a). 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-9 

TABLE 3.1.1-2 Colorado River Valley Field Office ACECs That Overlap 

with Oil Shale Resources 

ACEC R&I Criteriaa Acreageb

 

East Fork Parachute Creek Scenic values, fisheries, and plant resources 6,571 

Trapper/Northwater Creek Fisheries and plant resources 4,810 

a R&I = relevance and importance. 

b Acreage estimates represent the entire unit (not just the portion overlying the oil 

shale resources) and were derived from the Roan Plateau RMP Amendment 

(BLM 2008a). 

considered necessary because existing regulations, policies, and land use decisions were 

adequate to manage the oil shale resources. 

 Oil and gas and mineral development activities occur within the Grand Junction RMP 

boundary on both public and nonfederal lands. About 8% of the planning area is closed to oil 

and gas leasing; of the remaining area, almost 43% is open to leasing with standard lease terms, 

9% has NSO stipulations, and the remaining 38% has other stipulations attached to leasing. 

Approximately 390,000 acres of the Book Cliffs potential coal development area are considered 

acceptable for further coal leasing consideration. The Palisade municipal watershed and the 

Colorado River corridor through DeBeque Canyon are closed to coal development. 

 Other principal uses of public land within the boundary of the field office include grazing 

and recreation. Recreational use is varied and dispersed throughout the planning area. A number 

of areas are managed as SRMAs; however, none of them coincide with the oil shale resources 

evaluated in this PEIS. ROW authorizations exist within the planning area and may be co-located 

with the oil shale resources. 

 Several WSAs and ACECs are located within the planning area; however, none of these 

areas overlap with the oil shale resources. The McInnis Canyons NCA, managed by the BLM, 

and Colorado National Monument, managed by the NPS, are located within the Grand Junction 

Field Office boundary, but both are more than 35 mi from the oil shale resources being evaluated 

in this PEIS. 

3.1.1.3 White River Field Office, Colorado 

 The White River RMP was first issued in 1997 (BLM 1997a) and has been amended 

several times. An amendment addressing oil and gas issues is currently in preparation and 

a draft is scheduled for release in the fall of 2012. The BLM administers approximately 

1.46 million acres of surface estate and an additional 365,000 acres of split estate lands within 

the planning area encompassed by this RMP (Figure 3.1.1-2). The oil shale resources are located 

within the Piceance Basin, and the White River Field Office manages the bulk of the most 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-10 

geologically prospective oil shale resource in the Piceance Basin; no tar sands resources are 

located within the boundary of this field office. The 2008 OSTS PEIS and ROD made land use 

plan decisions regarding areas available for application for oil shale leasing within the field 

office. 

 In 2001, the White River RMP was amended to support revocation of previous 

withdrawals of deposits of oil shale and public lands containing such deposits from leasing or 

other disposal. Such withdrawals had been in place in order to protect the oil shale resource, 

pending further study and classification (BLM 2001a). The withdrawals were no longer 

considered necessary because existing regulations, policies, and land use decisions were 

adequate to manage the oil shale resources. 

 As discussed in Section 3.1.1.1, the Roan Plateau RMP Amendment and ROD 

(BLM 2006a, 2007a, 2008a) establish the Roan Plateau Planning Area as an area incorporating 

NOSRs 1 and 3, other BLM-administered lands, and nonfederal lands. A small portion of this 

new planning area overlaps with the White River Field Office. The amendment defines an 

integrated management strategy for the entire area, although management decisions are 

applicable only to the BLM-administered lands. While a portion of the Roan Plateau Planning 

Area extends into the White River Field Office boundary, the Colorado River Valley Field 

Office has jurisdiction over management of the entire planning area. 

 The White River RMP contained a number of decisions related to oil shale development 

in the Piceance Basin that were superseded by the ROD for the Oil Shale and Tar Sands PEIS in 

2008. Decisions from the 1985 Piceance Basin RMP (BLM 1985b) that are still in effect in 

include the following: 70,820 acres are available for leasing for multimineral development 

(i.e., development of oil shale, nahcolite, and dawsonite) inside the identified Multimineral Zone 

(Figure 3.1.1-3); multimineral development will be allowed only if recovery technologies are 

implemented to ensure that each of these minerals can be recovered without preventing recovery 

of the others; and the issuance of leases for oil shale research activities is allowed for by the 

RMP. Five RD&D leases have been issued in the White River Field Office for the purpose of 

demonstrating the application of potential oil shale recovery technologies (see Section 2.3 and 

Figure 2.3-2). 

 There are two RD&D leases that recently completed NEPA analysis and have been 

approved in the White River Field Office. 

 Intensive oil and gas and other mineral development is occurring within the White River 

Field Office boundary on both public and nonfederal lands, and much of this development is 

coincident with the oil shale resources. More than 1.5 million acres of land are available for oil 

and gas leasing with special stipulations, and an additional 168,486 acres are available for 

leasing under standard lease terms. Oil and gas transport and feeder pipelines cross the oil shale 

resources evaluated in this PEIS. 

 Oil and gas development is projected to increase significantly on the lands managed by 

the White River Field Office. A number of projects are currently under consideration to expand 
FIGURE 3.1.1-3 1997 White River RMP Decisions Related to Oil Shale Leasing and Development
Final OSTS PEIS 3-12 

existing development and the associated infrastructure. In June 2006, the BLM initiated 

preparation of an EIS to evaluate the proposed amendment of the existing RMP to address the 

potential impacts of significant increases in oil and gas development in the area. Preparation of 

this amendment is ongoing. In the last plan revision in 1997, the BLM anticipated the potential 

development of 1,100 oil and gas wells (at a rate of about 55 wells/yr), most of which were to be 

drilled south of Rangely, Colorado. In 2007, the oil and gas industry projected that more than 

21,000 wells could be drilled in the planning area over the next 20 years (BLM 2007d). 

 The White River RMP states that 172,700 acres of land within the planning area are 

underlain by recoverable coal reserves; 11,470 acres were found to be unsuitable for coal 

mining; 43,380 acres were found to be suitable for underground mining only; and 117,850 acres 

were found to be suitable for both surface and underground mining. Approximately 

610,000 acres are available for mining of locatable minerals. 

 The White River Field Office administers grazing on allotments that cover a significant 

portion of the planning area, including the area where the oil shale resources are located. 

The entire field office area has been designated as the White River Extensive Recreation 

Management Area; no SRMAs have been designated. The Piceance-East Douglas Herd 

Management Area (HMA) overlaps with the oil shale resources (see Section 3.1.3 for more 

information on wild horses and burros). ROW authorizations exist within the planning area 

and may be co-located with the oil shale resources. 

 Several WSAs have been designated within the White River Field Office area; however, 

they are all located to the northeast and northwest of the oil shale resources being evaluated in 

this PEIS. There also are areas that have been identified that possess wilderness characteristics 

within the field office boundary, and five within the most geologically prospective area for oil 

shale development. A number of ACECs have been designated within the White River Field 

Office boundary. Figure 3.1.1-2 shows those located within the most geologically prospective 

area for oil shale. The ACECs that overlap with the oil shale resources being evaluated in this 

PEIS are listed in Table 3.1.1-3. One of these ACECs, the Trapper/Northwater Creek ACEC, is 

located within the Roan Plateau Planning Area. 

 A portion of Dinosaur National Monument, which is managed by the NPS, falls within 

the White River Field Office boundary; however, it does not overlie any of the oil shale 

resources being evaluated in this PEIS (Figure 3.1.1-2). At its closest point, the Monument is 

more than 25 mi from the oil shale resources being evaluated within the Piceance Basin. 

 An underground nuclear test site, the Rio Blanco site, is also located in the Piceance 

Basin, White River Field Office area. The 360-acre site on DOE-administered land located 

approximately 30 mi southwest of Meeker was the site of nuclear testing in 1973. Three 

30-kiloton nuclear devices were detonated simultaneously at the bottom of shafts more than 

1 mi deep. This site is not included as part of the study area because the area is not on BLMadministered land. Because the detonations took place in low-permeability, low-transmissivity 

shale and claystone formations with sandstone lenses, test-related radionuclides are not expected 

to travel far from the source area. Ongoing monitoring conducted at this DOE Legacy site shows 

no surface contamination, and there are no surface use restrictions at the site. However, 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-13 

TABLE 3.1.1-3 White River Field Office ACECs That Overlap with Oil 

Shale Resources 

ACEC R&I Criteria Acreagea

 

Duck Creek Threatened and endangered plant and cultural resources 3,430 

Ryan Gulch Threatened and endangered plant resources 1,440 

Dudley Bluffs Threatened and endangered and sensitive plant resources 1,630 

Trapper Fisheries and plant resources 4,810b

a Acreage estimates represent the entire unit (not just the portion overlying the oil 

shale resources) and were derived from the White River RMP (BLM 1997a) unless 

otherwise noted. 

b Acreage estimates were derived from the Roan Plateau RMP Amendment (BLM 

2006a). 

subsurface disturbance is not allowed within a 600-ft radius of the test area without 

U.S. government permission. Groundwater and surface water monitoring have shown no 

radiological contamination. The Green River Formation lies about 3,000 ft above the depth 

where the detonations occurred. If the BLM were to lease its bordering property for oil shale 

development in the future, stipulations would be included to confirm that no radioactive 

contaminants would be mobilized. 

3.1.1.4 Grand StaircaseEscalante National Monument, Utah 

 The GSENM was established by Presidential Proclamation in September 1996. The 

GSENM Management Plan, published as proposed in 1999, became effective in February 2000 

(BLM 1999a). The GSENM encompasses about 1.87 million acres of federal lands and is 

surrounded primarily by federal lands, including the Dixie National Forest, Capitol Reef 

National Park, Glen Canyon NRA, Bryce Canyon National Park, and other BLM-administered 

lands (Figure 3.1.1-4). The GSENM overlies the western portion of the Circle Cliffs STSA. The 

eastern portion of this STSA extends into Capitol Reef National Park. According to available 

maps, a small portion of the Circle Cliffs STSA extends to the south into the Glen Canyon NRA. 

No oil shale resources are located within the Monument. 

 Currently, 8,921.36 acres within the Circle Cliffs STSA are held under two pending 

conversion leases for tar sands development (see Section 1.4.2). When the GSENM was 

established, all federal lands and interests within the Monument were withdrawn from additional 

entry, location, selection, sale, leasing, or other disposition, including mineral leasing. No new 

federal mineral leases can be issued, nor can new mining claims be located within the 

Monument. However, a number of oil and gas leases, mineral leases, and mining claims were in 

place at the time the Monument was established. While there are 68 federal mining claims 

covering about 2,700 acres and 85 federal oil and gas leases covering more than 136,000 acres, 

the BLM will verify whether “valid existing rights” are present on a case-by-case basis 
FIGURE 3.1.1-4 Portions of the Grand StaircaseEscalante National Monument and the Monticello and Richfield 

Tar Sands Resources Are Located 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-15 

(BLM 1999a). This adjudication process to determine the valid existing rights for pending 

conversion leases in the Circle Cliffs STSA is currently under way. 

 Some of the lands within the GSENM are designated as WSAs. Of these, the North 

Escalante Canyons/Gulch Instant Study Area (ISA) overlaps with the southwestern portion of the 

Circle Cliffs STSA (Figure 3.1.1-4), encompassing some of the lands included in the pending 

conversion leases. These lands fall within the Primitive Zone that has been designated within 

the GSENM; this zone is designated to provide visitors undeveloped and primitive experiences 

without motorized and mechanized access (BLM 1999a). A portion of the Circle Cliffs STSA, 

including lands within pending conversion leases, falls within the Outback Zone designated 

within the GSENM; this zone is designated to provide visitors undeveloped and primitive 

experiences while accommodating motorized and mechanized access (BLM 1999a). There are 

no ACECs designated within the GSENM. 

3.1.1.5 Monticello Field Office, Utah 

 The Monticello RMP was issued in 2008, replacing a 1991 RMP. The 2008 OSTS PEIS 

and ROD made land use plan decisions regarding areas available for application for tar sands 

leasing within the field office. 

 The BLM administers more than 1.7 million acres of surface estate and an additional 

763,000 acres of split estate lands within the planning area encompassed by this RMP 

(Figure 3.1.1-4). Tar sands are located in the field office within the White Canyon STSA; no oil 

shale resources are located in the lands managed by this field office. 

 According to the Monticello Field Office Mineral Potential Report (BLM 2006c), the 

other energy and mineral resources with a history of interest and development include oil and 

gas, coal, potash and salt, uranium-vanadium, copper, placer gold, sand and gravel, clay, and 

stone. Most of these resources, however, are not located in proximity to the White Canyon 

STSA. Unless otherwise noted, the following information about energy and mineral resources is 

from BLM (2006c). 

 The BLM administers more than 576,000 acres of federal leases for oil and gas 

development, including leases within the Glen Canyon NRA, Manti-LaSal National Forest, 

Navajo Indian Reservation, Indian Trust Lands, and split estate lands (BLM 1991b). 

Approximately 508 oil or gas wells are currently in production within the Monticello Planning 

Area (Vanden Berg 2005). This oil and gas development is located in the eastern portion of the 

planning area. 

 Coal deposits exist in the eastern portion of the field office region and were mined for 

several decades for local consumption. However, at this time there are no active coal mines. This 

is attributed to the low quality, thinness, and low heat value of the deposits. While potash and 

salt deposits are extensive across the eastern portion of the planning area, the only Known Potash 

Leasing Areas are in the northeastern corner of the field office region. Regarding the locatable 

minerals, uranium-vanadium, copper, and gold deposits and related mining claims occur within 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-16 

the Monticello Field Office, some in proximity to the White Canyon STSA. Salable Mineral 

Disposal Areas (for sand, gravel, clay, etc.) also have been established in the field office, but not 

in proximity to the White Canyon STSA. 

 The Monticello Field Office administers grazing on allotments that cover a significant 

portion of the planning area. Recreational use is varied and dispersed throughout the planning 

area. None of the designated recreation sites or SRMAs are located in areas overlying the tar 

sands resources in the White Canyon STSA. ROW authorizations exist within the planning area 

and may be co-located with the White Canyon STSA. 

 Several WSAs are located in the general vicinity of the White Canyon STSA. The Dark 

Canyon WSA lies adjacent to the STSA to the northeast and the Mancos Mesa and Cheesebox 

Canyon WSAs are located within 8 to 10 mi of the STSA (Figure 3.1.1-5). Available maps 

indicate that the Dark Canyon WSA may overlap with the STSA in a very small area. 

 As part of the development of the 2008 RMP the field office reviewed non-WSA areas 

with wilderness characteristics and made decisions regarding management of these areas. Five 

areas totaling about 88,781 acres have been identified to be managed to protect these wilderness 

characteristics. None of these areas intersect with the White Canyon STSA; however, the STSA 

contains and is surrounded by areas identified by the BLM as having wilderness characteristics 

that were not identified for long-term management to protect wilderness characteristics. 

 The BLM also has designated seven ACECs encompassing 73,492 acres within the field 

office, none of which are located near the White Canyon STSA. 

 The Monticello RMP also designated SRMAs that provide for management of various 

types of recreation uses. A portion of the White Canyon SRMA is located in the STSA and the 

Dark Canyon SRMA is located at the northeastern end of the STSA (Figure 3.1.1-5). 

 Other lands with special designations are located within the boundaries of the Monticello 

Field Office. NPS lands in the vicinity of the White Canyon STSA include Natural Bridges 

National Monument and portions of the Glen Canyon NRA and Canyonlands National Park. The 

nearest boundary of the Glen Canyon NRA is about 2 mi from the STSA boundary. The MantiLa Sal National Forest and the Dark Canyon Wilderness Area are located about 8 mi to the east 

of the White Canyon STSA (Figure 3.1.1-5). 

3.1.1.6 Price Field Office, Utah 

 Resources on public lands in the Price Field Office are managed in accordance with the 

Price Resource Area RMP and ROD, which was completed in 2008 (BLM 2008g). This RMP 

replaced two previous plans. In addition, the OSTS PEIS and ROD made land use plan decisions 

regarding areas within the field office available for application for oil shale and tar sands leasing. 

 The BLM administers about 2.5 million acres of surface estate and an additional area of 

about 2.7 million acres of split estate lands within this planning area (Figure 3.1.1-6). Tar sands 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-17 

FIGURE 3.1.1-5 Specially Designated Areas in the Monticello Field Office in the Vicinity of the 

White Canyon STSA 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-18 

FIGURE 3.1.1-6 Price Field Office RMP Planning Area 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-19 

are located within the San Rafael, Argyle Canyon, and Sunnyside STSAs; only a small portion 

(about 100 acres) of the most geologically prospective oil shale resources included in the study 

area falls within the jurisdiction of this field office. There are about 171,000 acres of additional, 

lower grade oil shale resources in the northeastern portion of the field office area. The STSAs 

and the most geologically prospective oil shale area have been classified as being available for 

application for commercial leasing. 

 According to the Mineral Potential Report for Price Field Office, Carbon and Emery 

Counties, Utah (BLM 2002a), the other energy and mineral resources that have been developed 

within the field office’s region include oil and gas, coal, uranium, gypsum, potash and salt, sand 

and gravel, clay, and stone. Some of these resources are located in proximity to the STSAs. 

 Unless otherwise noted, the following information about energy and mineral resources is 

from BLM (2002a). 

 Approximately 1.9 million acres of land are available for oil and gas leasing with various 

levels of protective stipulations in the Price Field Office and about 569,000 acres are unavailable 

for leasing (Price Field Office ROD, BLM 2008g). There are no active leases in the vicinity of 

the San Rafael STSA and, while some portions of these lands are open to leasing under standard 

lease terms, other portions are closed to leasing for oil and gas development because they fall 

within WSA boundaries. The potential for future oil and gas development in the vicinity of the 

San Rafael STSA is considered to be low. A considerable number of active leases exist adjacent 

to the Sunnyside STSA, and this area is projected to have a high potential for development. Most 

of the lands around the Sunnyside STSA are leased, with seasonal or other minor constraints. 

Although currently there is no coalbed natural gas production in the vicinity of the Sunnyside 

STSA, the area is considered to have potential for future coalbed natural gas production within 

the Book Cliffs Coalbed Methane Play. 

 There are about 673,389 acres of land included in 106 coal leases on lands managed by 

the field office. None of these leases are located near the San Rafael STSA. Only a few areas are 

leased to the west of the Sunnyside STSA within the Book Cliffs coal field. 

 Mining claims include about 32,000 acres of land in the field office’s region. Historic 

production of uranium has occurred in the vicinity of the San Rafael Swell in areas adjacent to 

the San Rafael STSA. Although continued development of this resource is considered unlikely 

over the next 15 years in the existing land use plans, there has recently been a very high interest 

in the development of uranium, as the price of this resource has increased. The prospects for 

other metal mining are relatively low throughout the field office area and in the vicinity of the 

STSAs. Production of gypsum, clay, sand and gravel, and stone has occurred in the vicinity of 

the San Rafael STSA or has the potential to occur in the future. 

 The Price Field Office administers grazing allotments on the basis of historical use and 

the availability of forage and water. These allotments cover the majority of the planning area and 

are categorized on the basis of their resource production potential and resource use conflicts. 

Most of the STSAs within the planning area coincide with grazing allotments. Seven SRMAs 

have been established within the planning area, some of which are near the STSAs, including the 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-20 

Desolation Canyon, San Rafael Swell, Nine Mile Canyon, Cleveland Lloyd Dinosaur Quarry, 

and Range Creek SRMAs. The Muddy Creek, Sinbad, and Range Creek Wild Horse HMAs 

overlap with some of the tar sands resources, as does the Sinbad Wild Burro HMA 

(see Section 3.1.3 for more information on wild horses and burros). ROW authorizations exist 

within the planning area and may be in areas with tar sands resources. 

 Several WSAs and ACECs have been designated in the Price Field Office. The WSAs 

and ACECs that overlap with an STSA and/or the most geologically prospective oil shale area 

are shown in Figure 3.1.1-6 and are listed in Table 3.1.1-4. The listed ACECs are those that were 

designated in 2008. Five sections of the Green River have been determined to be suitable for 

potential designation as a WSR (BLM 2008e). The two northern sections of the Green River 

overlie or are near oil shale and/or tar sands deposits and are shown in Figure 3.1.1-7. 

 There are 21 areas that were recognized by the BLM as having wilderness characteristics 

that overlie the San Rafael, Argyle Canyon, and Sunnyside STSAs, and the most geologically 

prospective oil shale area. As part of the Price RMP and ROD (BLM 2008g), decisions were 

made to manage five of these areas (totaling 97,100 acres) to protect, preserve, and maintain 

their wilderness character. The five areas are shown in Figure 3.1.1-7 and are discussed in 

greater detail in the supplement to the draft RMP (BLM 2007b). Four of these areas intersect 

with the San Rafael STSA (Table 3.1.1-5). 

TABLE 3.1.1-4 Price Field Office WSAs and ACECs That Overlap 

with Tar Sands Resources 

Area R&I Criteria Acreagea

 

Desolation Canyon WSA NAb 229,860 

Jack Canyon WSA NAb 7,735 

Mexican Mountain WSA NAb 59,930 

San Rafael Reef WSA NAb 63,007 

Sid’s Mountain WSA NAb 78,718 

Devil’s Canyon WSA NAb 9,111 

Crack Canyon WSA NAb 26,640 

Link Flats ISA NAb 855 

I-70 Scenic ACEC Scenic resources 45,463 

San Rafael Canyon ACEC Scenic resources 54,102 

Nine Mile Canyon Cultural resources 22,335 

San Rafael Reef ACECc Scenic resources and relict vegetation 84,018 

Sid’s Mountain ACEC Scenic resources 61,380 

Temple Mountain ACEC Historic resources 2,444 

Copper Globe ACEC Historic resources 128 

a Acreage estimates represent the entire unit (not just the portion overlying the 

tar sands resources) and were derived from GIS data compiled to support the 

PEIS analysis. 

b NA = not applicable. 

c Sid’s Mountain was dropped as an ACEC in the 2008 RMP. 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-21 

FIGURE 3.1.1-7 Areas with Wilderness Characteristics in the Price Field Office That the BLM 

Will Manage To Protect Those Characteristics That Overlap with Oil Shale and/or Tar Sands 

Deposits 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-22 

TABLE 3.1.1-5 Non-WSA Lands Recognized as Having Wilderness 

Characteristics Designated for Long-Term Management in the Price Field 

Office That Overlap with Oil Shale and Tar Sands Depositsa,b 

Name of Area with Wilderness 

Characteristics 

Total Size of Area with 

Wilderness Characteristics 

to Be Managed 

(acres) 

Amount of Overlap 

(acres) 

 

Overlapping San Rafael STSA 

Hondu Country 20,121 4,206 

Mexican Mountain 4,200 22,434 

Muddy Creek–Crack Canyon 52,700 10,891 

San Rafael Reef 3,300 6,017 

a Key characteristics of wilderness that may be considered in land use planning 

include an area’s appearance of naturalness and the existence of outstanding 

opportunities for solitude or primitive and unconfined types of recreation. 

b Acreage estimates were derived from GIS data compiled to support the PEIS 

analyses. 

3.1.1.7 Richfield Field Office, Utah 

 The Richfield Field Office RMP was completed in October 2008 and covers public 

lands within the Richfield Field Office boundary. This RMP replaces a 1982 MFP that had 

been amended multiple times. The field office region includes the Tar Sand Triangle STSA, 

portions of which extend into the Glen Canyon NRA and Canyonlands National Park and the 

Circle Cliffs STSA. The western portion of the Circle Cliffs STSA is located in the GSENM 

(see Section 3.1.1.4) and the eastern portion, while it is located within the Richfield Field Office 

boundary, is inside of Capitol Reef National Park. There are no oil shale resources located under 

lands managed by this field office. The 2008 OSTS PEIS and ROD made land use plan decisions 

regarding areas available for application for tar sands leasing within the field office for lands 

under BLM administration. 

 The Tar Sand Triangle STSA was historically available for tar sands or oil and gas 

development only through CHLs, subject to appropriate stipulations. While there are no existing 

CHLs in the STSA, there are seven pending conversion leases, totaling 41,254.16 acres. Four of 

these pending conversion leases, totaling 20,442.20 acres, fall within the Glen Canyon NRA. The 

BLM is engaged in an adjudication process to determine the status of these pending conversion 

leases and whether or not to convert them to CHLs. Under decisions made in the 2008 OSTS 

PEIS and ROD, BLM-administered land in the STSA is open for consideration for tar sands 

leasing pursuant to the regulations promulgated as required by the Energy Policy Act of 2005. 

(See 43 CFR subpart 3141.) 

 According to the Mineral Potential Report prepared for the Richfield Field Office 

(BLM 2005a), a wide variety of other energy and mineral resources are located on lands 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-23 

managed by the field office. However, the only other resources that are located in the immediate 

vicinity of the two STSAs with moderate or higher occurrence potential are oil and gas, coal, 

coalbed natural gas, gypsum and salt, uranium-vanadium, gold, other metals, clay, and stone. 

 Numerous oil and gas wells have been drilled within and in the vicinity of the Tar Sand 

Triangle STSA. All but two of these wells, however, have been plugged and abandoned, and 

there is no active production near either the Tar Sand Triangle or Circle Cliffs STSA 

(BLM 2005a). These areas are located within geologic provinces that have active production in 

areas outside the Richfield Field Office region (BLM 2005b); thus, production of oil or gas in the 

future is possible. Both the Tar Sand Triangle and Circle Cliffs STSA are located in portions of 

the planning area considered to have a high potential for the occurrence of oil in the tar sands 

deposits (BLM 2005a). 

 The Henry Mountains coal field is located to the east of the Circle Cliffs STSA. There are 

no coal resources in the vicinity of the Tar Sand Triangle STSA. 

 The Richfield Field Office administers grazing allotments that cover a significant portion 

of the planning area, but some of the grazing allotments in the vicinity of the Tar Sand Triangle 

STSA currently are not being grazed, and a portion of the STSA does not have grazing 

allotments associated with it. There are no specific recreation sites or SRMAs in the vicinity 

of the Tar Sand Triangle STSA. The Canyonlands Wild Burro HMA overlaps some of the tar 

sands resources (see Section 3.1.3 for more information on wild horses and burros). ROW 

authorizations exist within the planning area and may be located on lands with tar sands 

resources. 

 Several WSAs are located in the general vicinity of the Tar Sand Triangle STSA 

(Figure 3.1.1-8). The Fiddler Butte and French Spring–Happy Canyon WSAs overlap with 

portions of the Tar Sand Triangle STSA. According to available maps, a very small portion of 

the Horseshoe Canyon and Dirty Devil WSAs also may overlap with this STSA. The Mount 

Pennell WSA is situated immediately to the east of the Circle Cliffs STSA, abutting in some 

places Capitol Reef National Park. One designated SRMA, Dirty Devil/Robber’s Roost overlaps 

the Tar Sands Triangle STSA. 

 There are no designated ACECs near either of the two STSAs in the field office region 

(BLM 2005d). 

 A tract of land overlying the Tar Sand Triangle STSA has been recognized as having 

wilderness characteristics. About 24,255 acres of the Dirty Devil–French Spring non-WSA area, 

which possesses wilderness characteristics, overlaps a portion of the Tar Sands Triangle STSA, 

but in the ROD for the Richfield RMP the decision was made to not manage this area to protect 

wilderness characteristics. 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-24 

FIGURE 3.1.1-8 WSAs in the Richfield Field Office That Overlie the Tar Sand Triangle STSA 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-25 

3.1.1.8 Vernal Field Office, Utah 

 Resources present in the Vernal Field Office are managed in accordance with the Vernal 

Field Office Record of Decision and Approved RMP (BLM 2008i). The Vernal RMP supersedes 

two previous plans: the Diamond Mountain RMP (BLM 1994a) and the Book Cliffs RMP

(BLM 1985a). The 2008 OSTS PEIS and ROD made land use plan decisions regarding areas 

available for application for tar sands leasing within the field office for lands under BLM 

administration. The BLM administers almost 1.7 million acres of land within this planning area 

(Figure 3.1.1-9). Tar sands resources are located within the Hill Creek, P.R. Spring, Raven 

Ridge, Asphalt Ridge, Pariette, Sunnyside, and Argyle Canyon STSAs within the field office 

boundary.2 The field office is located within the Uinta Basin and also contains oil shale 

resources. 

 Most of the Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation is within the area managed by the 

Vernal Field Office. Lands within the reservation on which the subsurface mineral estate is 

owned by the Northern Ute Tribe were opened for leasing under the 2008 OSTS PEIS and ROD. 

 The subsurface mineral estate underlying about 188,500 acres within the Hill Creek 

Extension of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation is owned by the federal government, and leasing 

of these lands for oil shale and/or tar sands development was evaluated in the 2008 PEIS 

(Figure 3.1.1-10). Of these split estate lands, approximately 57,705 acres overlie the oil shale 

resources within the Uinta Basin, and approximately 35,472 acres overlie the Hill Creek STSA. 

 Although there currently is no tar sands development underway on BLM-administered 

lands, there are four permitted tar sands surface mining operations within the Vernal Field Office 

planning area, all in Uintah County (BLM 2006c). Prior to the issuance of the ROD for the 

2008 OSTS PEIS, tar sands resources within the STSAs were available for tar sands or oil and 

gas development only through CHLs, subject to appropriate stipulations. Six CHLs are located 

within the Vernal Field Office region; 1,066.41 acres are held under four leases in the Pariette 

STSA, and 6,080.30 acres are held under two leases in the P.R. Spring STSA. In addition, there 

are eight pending conversion leases in the P.R. Spring STSA, totaling 27,668.04 acres. The BLM 

is engaged in an adjudication process to determine the status of these pending conversion leases 

and whether or not to convert them to CHLs. Under decisions made in the 2008 OSTS PEIS and 

ROD, BLM-administered land in the STSA is open for consideration for tar sands leasing 

pursuant to the regulations promulgated as required by the Energy Policy Act of 2005. 

(See 43 CFR subpart 3141.) 

 According to the Mineral Potential Report for the Vernal Planning Area (BLM 2002b), 

the other energy and mineral resources located within the field office region include oil and gas, 

 

2 A portion of the P.R. Spring STSA extends south from the Vernal Field Office boundary into the Moab Field 

Office boundary; however, this area is administered by the Vernal Field Office under a MOU with the Moab 

Field Office. Under this agreement, the Vernal Field Office administers all resources and programs, including 

land use planning, for the entire P.R. Spring STSA. 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-26 

FIGURE 3.1.1-9 Vernal Field Office RMP Planning Area 
FIGURE 3.1.1-10 Split Estate Lands within the Hill Creek Extension of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-28 

coalbed natural gas, coal, gilsonite,3 phosphate, uranium, gold, gypsum, sand and gravel, clay, 

and stone. Some of these resources are located in close proximity to the STSAs and oil shale 

resources. Unless otherwise noted, the following information about energy and mineral resources 

is from BLM (2002b). 

 About 9,036 active oil and gas wells are located within the Vernal Field Office planning 

area, and more than 1.8 million acres of land are available for leasing (for both conventional oil 

and gas and coalbed natural gas development), including about 188,500 acres of split estate lands 

within the Hill Creek Extension of the Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation (BLM 2005e). 

Conventional oil and gas production occurs and is projected to continue in the future within 

five development areas, four of which include either tar sands or oil shale resources or both. 

Specifically, the Tabiona-Ashley Valley development area overlaps with the Asphalt Ridge and 

Raven Ridge STSAs. The Monument Butte-Redwash development area overlaps with the Raven 

Ridge and Pariette STSAs, as well as the oil shale resources within the Uinta Basin. In addition, 

the East Tavaputs Plateau development area overlaps with the Hill Creek and P.R. Spring STSAs 

as well as some of the oil shale resources. Existing oil and gas development is relatively limited 

in the Tabiona-Ashley Valley development area and is expected to remain low over the next 

15 years. Conversely, development is extensive in the remaining three development areas and is 

expected to be relatively high in the next 15 years, especially in the Monument Butte-Redwash 

area, where 1,700 oil wells and 3,100 gas wells are projected. Although currently there is no 

coalbed natural gas production in the field office region, the potential exists within a small 

portion of the West Tavaputs Plateau area within the Uinta Basin–Book Cliffs Play near the 

Argyle Canyon STSA. Coalbed natural gas potential also exists within the East Tavaputs Plateau 

development area within the Uinta Basin Sego Play where the P.R. Spring STSA is located. 

 Coal mining has not occurred on public lands within the Vernal Field Office boundary 

because of lack of demand and poor quality of the deposits. Deposits in the Vernal coal field are 

co-located with the Asphalt Ridge and Raven Ridge STSAs, but development is considered 

unlikely in the next 15 years. 

 Gilsonite occurs in the Vernal Field Office planning area as vein-type deposits 

throughout much of the oil shale area being evaluated in the PEIS, as well as in the Pariette and 

P.R. Spring STSAs. Authorized leases and pending permit applications exist within the oil shale 

boundary. Gilsonite production is expected to continue over the next 15 years, as demand from 

the oil and gas industry for this drilling mud additive is expected to continue. Limited phosphate 

deposits are located within the Vernal Field Office boundary; they overlap with the western 

portion of the Asphalt Ridge STSA. Currently, there is no phosphate production on federal lease 

areas although the potential exists. Sand and gravel and stone mining occur throughout the 

Vernal Field Office planning area and are expected to continue. Mining claims for locatable 

minerals, including gold, uranium, and gypsum, are limited because of the low quality and 

quantity of these deposits. In addition, lands covered by the oil shale withdrawal are not open to 

mining claims. 

 

3 Gilsonite is a black, homogeneous, solid hydrocarbon that is mined and used in the production of varnishes, 

lacquers, paints, some plastics, ink, and drilling muds. 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-29 

 Within the Vernal Field Office, designated livestock grazing allotments encompass more 

than 1.69 million acres of BLM-administered land. Approximately 545,000 additional acres of 

other lands (e.g., private, state, tribal) are included within these allotments. These allotments 

cover the majority of the planning area and are categorized on the basis of their resource 

production potential and resource use conflicts. Several SRMAs have been established within the 

planning area, some of which are co-located with the tar sands and oil shale resources, including 

the White River, Fantasy Canyon, and Nine Mile Canyon SRMAs. The Hill Creek Wild Horse 

HMA overlaps with some of the oil shale and tar sands resources (see Section 3.1.3 for more 

information on wild horses and burros). ROW authorizations exist within the planning area and 

may be co-located with the tar sands or oil shale resources. 

 There are two4 WSAs and four ACECs that overlap with tar sands and/or oil shale 

resources that are shown in Figure 3.1.1-9 and listed in Table 3.1.1-6. In addition, two portions 

of the Green River have been determined to be suitable for designation as a WSR 

(see Appendix C of BLM 2005e). Those suitable segments that overlie or are near oil shale 

and/or tar sands deposits are shown in Figure 3.1.1-9 and include portions of the Upper and 

Lower Green River. 

 There are six non-WSA areas that overlie portions of the most geologically prospective 

oil shale area and three STSAs that have been recognized by the BLM as having wilderness 

characteristics. In the Vernal ROD, a decision was made to manage a portion of one of these 

areas, the White River area, shown in Figure 3.1.1-9, to protect wilderness characteristics. 

Within the total Vernal Field Office area, BLM has made decisions to manage 106,178 acres in 

15 non-WSA areas to protect wilderness characteristics that are present. 

 Other lands with special designations are located within the boundaries of the Vernal 

Field Office (Figure 3.1.1-9). A portion of Dinosaur National Monument, a unit of the National 

Park System, is within the Vernal Field Office boundary; however, it does not overlie any of the 

oil shale or tar sands resources being evaluated in this PEIS. At its closest point, the Monument 

is just under 7 mi from the Raven Ridge STSA, 8.5 mi from the Asphalt Ridge STSA, and 17 mi 

from the oil shale resources being evaluated within the Uinta Basin. The Ashley National Forest 

and Wasatch-Cache National Forest both fall within the Vernal Field Office boundary. Lands 

within the Ashley National Forest overlie the Asphalt Ridge, Argyle Canyon, and Sunnyside 

STSAs. In addition, lands within the Flaming Gorge NRA, which is administered by the Ashley 

National Forest, overlie oil shale resources identified in the Green River Basin in Wyoming. The 

BLM does not make planning decisions for these National Forest lands. The High Uintas 

Wilderness Area, which is located within both the Ashley and Wasatch-Cache National Forests, 

does not overlie the oil shale or tar sands resources being evaluated in this PEIS. This Wilderness 

Area is more than 13 mi from the Asphalt Ridge STSA, the closest STSA, and more than 13.5 mi 

from the nearest oil shale resources being evaluated within the Green River Basin in Wyoming. 

 

4 Flume Canyon WSA is in the Moab Field Office but overlaps a portion of the P.R. Springs STSA that is 

managed by the Vernal Field Office. 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-30 

TABLE 3.1.1-6 Vernal Field Office WSAs and ACECs That Overlap with Oil 

Shale and Tar Sands Resources 

Area R&I Criteria Acreagea

 

Winter Ridge WSA NAb 43,339 

 

Flume Canyon WSAc NA 1,466 

 

Pariette Wetlands ACEC Wetlands resources and special status bird 

habitat and plant communities 

10,635 

 

Lears Canyon ACEC Relict plant communities 1,378 

Lower Green River ACEC Riparian habitat and scenic values 9,430 

Nine Mile Canyon ACEC Cultural and scenic resources and special status 

plant communities 

48,151 

a Acreage estimates represent the entire unit (not just the portion overlying the oil shale 

and/or tar sands resources) and were derived from GIS data compiled to support the 

PEIS analyses. 

b NA = not applicable. 

c Actually located in the Moab Field Office; Flume Canyon only overlaps tar sands 

resources. 

3.1.1.9 Kemmerer Field Office, Wyoming 

 The Kemmerer Field Office completed the Kemmerer RMP in 2010. The BLM 

administers 1.4 million acres of surface lands and 1.6 million acres of federal mineral estate 

within the planning area encompassed by this RMP (Figure 3.1.1-11). The oil shale resources 

are located within the Green River Basin; no known tar sands resources are located within the 

boundaries of this field office. The 2008 OSTS PEIS and ROD made land use plan decisions 

regarding areas available for application for oil shale leasing within the field office for lands 

under BLM administration. 

 According to the Kemmerer Field Office Planning Area Mineral Assessment Report

(BLM 2004b) that was prepared for the recent RMP, the other energy and mineral resources of 

note found within the field office include oil and gas, coalbed natural gas, coal, trona,5 uranium, 

bentonite, sand, gravel, and decorative stone. Some of these resources are located in close 

proximity to the oil shale resources. Unless otherwise noted, the following information about 

energy and mineral resources is from the BLM (2004b). 

 

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

sodium tripolyphosphate, and chemical caustic soda. 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-31 

FIGURE 3.1.1-11 BLM Field Offices in Wyoming Where Oil Shale Resources Are Located 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-32 

 More than 1 million acres of land are currently leased for oil and gas development within 

the jurisdiction of this field office, including most of the federal subsurface mineral estate that 

coincides with the oil shale resource. Gas production in the Green River Basin is associated with 

gas fields located in and adjacent to the La Barge PlatformMoxa Arch trend. Coalbed natural 

gas wells have been drilled in the Kemmerer Field Office and, while production is currently low, 

more development is expected in the future. 

 Coal reserves in the Kemmerer Field Office area occur in two major regional coal fields: 

the Hams Fork Coal Field and the western portion of the Green River Coal Field. Coal 

production is currently occurring only in the Hams Fork Coal Field, which does not coincide 

with the oil shale resources located in the Green River Basin. There are no existing coal leases 

in the Green River Coal Field, which overlaps with the oil shale resources. 

 The world’s largest known trona deposits exist within an area defined as a Known 

Sodium Leasing Area (KSLA), which extends into the eastern portion of the Kemmerer Field 

Office region. Trona leases have been issued within this area, and production occurs from a 

number of underground mines. The BLM has designated a portion of the KSLA as the 

Mechanically Mineable Trona Area (MMTA) (Figure 3.1.1-11) and determined that this 

area will be excluded from oil shale leasing until technology or other factors exist to allow 

development of the oil shale resource without jeopardizing the safe operation of underground 

trona mines. The KSLA covers all of the MMTA and most of the oil shale resources west and 

south of the MMTA. 

 The Kemmerer Field Office administers grazing on allotments that cover a significant 

portion of the southern half of the planning area, including most of the area where oil shale 

resources are located. Recreational use of BLM-administered lands is dispersed throughout the 

planning area. The BLM has designated some areas to be managed specifically to protect their 

recreation potential, but except for the areas adjacent to historic trails, most of these areas do not 

coincide with the oil shale resources. ROW authorizations exist within the planning area and 

may be located in areas with oil shale resources. 

 A small portion of one WSA that is shared with the Rock Springs Field Office, as well as 

several locations where there are populations of sensitive plant species that may be designated as 

ACECs on a case-by-case basis, are within the Kemmerer planning area and overlap with the oil 

shale resources (Figure 3.1.1-12). There is no non-WSA land identified as possessing wilderness 

characteristics overlapping oil shale resources within the field office boundary. Several historic 

trails cross the area where oil shale resources are located (see Section 3.9.4). Lands within the 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest at the southern edge of the planning area are adjacent to but do 

not overlap with the oil shale resources (Figure 3.1.1-11). Specially designated lands and trails 

are shown in Figure 3.1.1-12. 

3.1.1.10 Rawlins Field Office, Wyoming 

 The Rawlins RMP was completed in 2008 (BLM 2008c). The BLM administers 

3.5 million acres of surface lands and 4.5 million acres of federal mineral estate within the 
FIGURE 3.1.1-12 Specially Designated Areas in the Kemmerer Field Office 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-34 

planning area encompassed by this RMP (Figure 3.1.1-11). The oil shale resources are located 

within the Washakie Basin in the very southwestern portion of the Rawlins Field Office area. No 

known tar sands resources are located within the boundaries of this field office. The 2008 OSTS 

PEIS and ROD made land use plan decisions regarding areas available for application for oil 

shale leasing within the field office for lands under BLM administration. 

 Other energy and mineral resources of note located within the field office include oil and 

gas, coalbed natural gas, coal, and uranium. Most of these resources are not located in close 

proximity to the oil shale resources. Unless otherwise noted, the following information about 

energy and mineral resources is from the Draft Rawlins RMP EIS (BLM 2004e). The majority of 

the oil and gas fields are located in the western portion of the planning area but to the east or 

north of the oil shale resources. Oil and gas development is increasing significantly in the region; 

the greatest level of development in the Rawlins Field Office is concentrated in the Great Divide 

Basin, which is largely to the north of the oil shale resources. While there has been little coalbed 

natural gas production in this area, interest is increasing. There are six coal fields in the Rawlins 

Field Office, but all are located to the east of the oil shale resources. 

 The Rawlins Field Office administers grazing on allotments that cover a significant 

portion of the western half of the planning area, including most of the area where oil shale 

resources are located. Recreation is one of the major uses of BLM-administered lands within 

this planning area. Recreation sites have been established in areas of heavy recreational use; 

larger areas of dispersed but heavy recreational use also have been identified and designated 

as SRMAs. None of the designated recreation sites or SRMAs is located in an area overlying 

the oil shale resources. The Adobe Town Wild Horse HMA overlaps with some of the oil 

shale resources (see Section 3.1.3 for more information on wild horses and burros). ROW 

authorizations exist within the planning area and may be co-located with the oil shale resources. 

 None of the ACECs designated in the Rawlins planning area overlap with the oil shale 

resources. One historic trail, the southern route of the Cherokee Trail, crosses the area where oil 

shale resources are located (Figure 3.1.1-13; see Section 3.9.4). 

 The Adobe Town WSA straddles the Rawlins and Rock Springs Field Office boundary 

and includes about 82,350 acres of BLM-administered land. The BLM recommended that 

about 11,000 acres of the area be designated as wilderness in its 1992 Report to Congress. 

About 33,389 acres of the WSA overlap with oil shale resources in the Washakie Basin 

(Figure 3.1.1-13), with 7,885 acres being located within the Rawlins Field Office. The WSA also 

sits within a larger area that was designated by the Wyoming Environmental Quality Council 

(WEQC) in 2008 as the Adobe Town “Very Rare or Uncommon Area.” The Very Rare or 

Uncommon Area includes 180,910 total acres, of which 167,517 acres are public land. Its 

boundary overlaps 50,025 acres of the oil shale basin, with 17,879 acres being located within the 

Rawlins Field Office. The WEQC designation applies only to state mining permits issued by 

Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (WDEQ) and would protect the area from stateauthorized non-surface coal mining and surface mining for oil shale, uranium, and gravel pit 

mining. The designation does not limit oil and gas leasing, exploration, production, or related 

construction. 
FIGURE 3.1.1-13 Specially Designated Areas Overlapping the Most Geologically Prospective Area 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-36 

 Portions of the Adobe Town/Kinney Rim area were determined by the BLM to contain 

wilderness characteristics. These areas are located on the western and eastern borders of the 

WSA. All but one of these areas is within the WEQC-designated Adobe Town “Very Rare or 

Uncommon Area.” Based on the presence of existing oil and gas leases within the areas with 

wilderness characteristics outside the WSA, it was determined in the Rawlins RMP that all of 

these areas would be managed as multiple-use lands and not for protection of wilderness 

characteristics. The Kinney Rim South unit west of the WSA was mistakenly identified in the 

Draft PEIS as an area with wilderness characteristics. The BLM had previously reviewed this 

area and had determined that wilderness characteristics were not present. The approved Rawlins 

RMP includes the designation of the lands within the Rawlins District located west and south of 

the Adobe Town WSA as the Adobe Town Dispersed Recreation Use Area (DRUA). All of the 

Adobe Town “Very Rare or Uncommon Area” outside of the WSA within the Rawlins Field 

Office is included within the DRUA. 

3.1.1.11 Rock Springs Field Office, Wyoming 

 The Green River RMP was issued in 1997 (BLM 1997b), and several maintenance 

changes have been implemented over time. The Rock Springs Field Office is in the beginning 

stages of a plan revision process that will replace the current plan. The BLM administers about 

3.6 million acres of public land surface and 3.5 million acres of federal mineral estate 

(Figures 3.1.1-11 and 3.1.1-14). Oil shale resources are located within both the Green River and 

Washakie Basins; no known tar sands resources are located within the boundaries of this field 

office. The 2008 OSTS PEIS and ROD made land use plan decisions regarding areas available 

for application for oil shale leasing within the field office for lands under BLM administration. 

 In 2006, the Green River RMP was amended by the Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated 

Activity Plan (JMHCAP) (BLM 2006b). Only a small portion of the Jack Morrow Hills area 

overlaps with oil shale resources in the Green River Basin being evaluated in this PEIS, and 

because of decisions made in formulation of alternatives for the PEIS, less than 20,000 acres 

on the very western edge of the JMHCAP area is available for oil shale leasing. 

 Other energy and mineral resources of note located within the field office include oil and 

gas, coalbed natural gas, coal, geothermal resources, and trona. 

 As discussed in Section 3.1.1.9, the world’s largest known trona deposits exist within a 

designated KSLA that straddles the boundary between the Rock Springs and Kemmerer Field 

Offices. Trona leases have been issued within this area, and production occurs from a number 

of underground mines. The BLM has designated a portion of the KSLA as the MMTA 

(Figure 3.1.1-11) and determined that this area will be excluded from oil shale leasing until 

technology or other factors allow development of the oil shale resource without jeopardizing the 

safe operation of underground trona mines. The KSLA covers all of the MMTA and most of the 

oil shale resources west and south of the MMTA. 

 The Rock Springs Field Office administers grazing on allotments that cover almost the 

entire planning area, including most of the areas where oil shale resources are located. The 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-37 

FIGURE 3.1.1-14 Specially Designated Areas in the Rock Springs Field Office 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-38 

Adobe Town, Little Colorado, Salt Wells Creek, and White Mountain Wild Horse HMAs 

overlap with some of the oil shale resources (see Section 3.1.3 for more information on wild 

horses and burros). ROW authorizations exist within the planning area and may be co-located 

with the oil shale resources. 

 Portions of three WSAs and five ACECs overlap oil shale resources in the Green River 

and Washakie Basins within the Rock Springs Field Office boundary. With respect to any new 

potential ACECs, the Rock Springs Field Office has not yet completed its ACEC report. Any 

decisions regarding designation and management of ACECs will be made by the Rock Springs 

Field Office through their land use planning process. In addition, several historic trails cross the 

area (see Figure 3.1.1-11) where oil shale resources are located (see Section 3.9.4). Recreation 

sites have been established in areas that coincide with the oil shale resources in the Green River 

Basin, and three designated SMAs overlap or are adjacent to oil shale resources in the Rock 

Springs Field Office. The BLM has established stipulations restricting surface-disturbance 

activities within the two SMAs that overlap the oil shale resources being evaluated in this PEIS. 

Areas discussed in this paragraph are shown in Figure 3.1.1-14 and listed in Table 3.1.1-7. 

 In the southeastern part of the Rock Springs Field Office area, the Monument Valley 

SMA, the Adobe Town Very Rare and Uncommon Area, and the Adobe Town WSA overlap one 

another to varying degrees and overlap the most geologically prospective area as well (also see 

the discussion of the Adobe Town area in Section 3.1.1.10 above). The Monument Valley SMA 

almost completely overlaps the portion of the Adobe Town Very Rare or Uncommon Area 

designated by the Wyoming Environmental Council within the Rock Springs Field Office area. 

The SMA contains 98,308 acres, of which 32,572 acres within the the Rock Springs Field Office 

overlap oil shale resources in the Washakie Basin. There are 32,146 acres of the Very Rare and 

Uncommon Area within the Rock Springs Field Office that also overlap these resources (see 

Figure 3.1.1-11). 

 The Pine Mountain SMA is adjacent to the southwestern boundary of the Washakie Basin 

most geologically prospective area. The Kinney Rim North unit west of the Adobe Town WSA 

was mistakenly identified in the Draft PEIS as an area with wilderness characteristics. The BLM 

had previously reviewed this area and had determined that wilderness characteristics were not 

present. 

 The Flaming Gorge NRA, a unit within the Ashley National Forest, is located within the 

Rock Springs Field Office boundary and overlaps in part with the oil shale resources in the 

Green River Basin being evaluated in this PEIS; however, the BLM is not making land allocation 

decisions for Forest Service–administered areas in this PEIS. The High Uintas Wilderness Area, 

which is located within both the Ashley and Wasatch-Cache National Forests in northern Utah, is 

more than 13.5 mi at its closest point from the oil shale resources being evaluated within the 

Green River Basin in Wyoming (see Figure 3.1.1-11). 

3.1.2 Recreational Land Use in the Three-State Study Area 

 Recreational use of BLM-administered lands within the three-state study area is varied 

and dispersed. Specific recreation sites and use areas have been designated by the BLM 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-39 

TABLE 3.1.1-7 Rock Springs Field Office WSAs, SMAs, and ACECs That Overlap with Oil Shale 

Resources 

Area R&I Criteria Acreagea

 

Devils Playground/Twin Buttes WSA NAb 23,070 

Buffalo Hump WSA NA 9,480 

Adobe Town WSA NA 54,330 

White Mountain Petroglyphs ACEC Cultural values 20c

Greater Red Creek ACEC Fragile soils, unique ecological features, watershed 

 and cultural values, sensitive species 

131,890c

Pine Springs ACEC Cultural values 6,030c

Greater Sand Dunes ACEC Outstanding geologic features, prehistoric and 

 historic values, recreation values 

38,650c

Special Status Plant Species ACEC Natural processes, fragile plant species 900c

Adobe Town Very Rare or Uncommon Area NA 32,146 

Monument Valley SMA NA 98,308 

Sugarloaf Basin SMA NA 92,962 

Pine Mountain SMA NA 64,200c

Jack Morrow Hills Area 3 NA 233,350 

a Unless otherwise noted, acreage estimates represent the entire unit (not just the portion overlying the oil shale 

resources) and were derived from GIS data compiled to support the PEIS analyses. 

b NA = not applicable. 

c Acreage estimate was derived from the Green River RMP (BLM 1997b). 

throughout the region. To facilitate and manage OHV use, existing land use plans within the 

study area identify areas that are designated as either closed, open, or limited to OHV use, and 

these designations overlap oil shale and tar sands resources. 

 Generally, the BLM provides recreational opportunities where they are compatible with 

other authorized land uses, while minimizing risks to public health and safety and maintaining 

the health and diversity of the land. The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) is one of the 

means that the BLM uses to inventory, plan, and manage recreational use. Seven elements 

provide the basis for inventorying and delineating recreational settings: access, remoteness, 

naturalness, facility and site management, visitor management, social encounters, and visitor 

impacts. Based on these elements, the BLM (1981) utilizes six ROS classes to describe 

management goals: 

1. Primitive. Large areas of about 5,000 acres (2,023 ha) or more located at least 

3 mi (5 km) from the nearest point of motor vehicle access; 

2. Semiprimitive nonmotorized. Areas of about 2,500 acres (1,012 ha) located at 

least 0.5 mi (0.8 km) from the nearest point of motor vehicle access; 

3. Semiprimitive motorized. Areas of about 2,500 acres (1,012 ha) located within 

0.5 mi (0.8 km) of primitive roads and two-track vehicle trails; 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-40 

4. Roaded natural. Areas near improved and maintained roads; 

5. Rural. Areas characterized by a substantially modified natural environment; 

and 

6. Urban. Areas located near paved highways where the landscape is dominated 

by human modification. 

 The BLM also distinguishes recreational use on the basis of the level of use and 

management requirements. Areas designated as Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMAs) 

require recreation activity plans and a major investment in facilities or supervision of more 

intensive activities. Areas designated as Extensive Recreation Management Areas (ERMAs), 

however, offer mostly unstructured, dispersed, and low-intensity recreational opportunities that 

require a minimum amount of facilities and management. These designations are made through 

the land use planning process. Both SRMAs and ERMAs are found within the study area. In 

addition to SRMAs, many of the areas with special designations, such as ACECs, WSAs, SMAs, 

national historic trails, and lands with wilderness characteristics, support higher levels of 

recreation use than most BLM-administered areas. 

 Other federal and state agencies also manage a wide variety of recreational areas in the 

region, and recreational use is a significant part of the regional economy. Table 3.1.2-1 provides 

at least a partial listing of the many recreational areas and other areas that may provide recreation 

opportunities located within about a 50-mi radius of the oil shale and tar sands resources 

evaluated in this PEIS. This information was derived from various Internet sites and may not be 

all inclusive; it does not include recreation sites and areas, WSAs, or ACECs that are managed 

by the BLM and also occur in the area (many of these are discussed in Section 3.1.1). The intent 

of the table is to demonstrate the overall importance of recreational land use and the large variety 

of recreation areas in the region. 

3.1.3 Wild Horses and Burros in the Three-State Study Area 

 The Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act passed by Congress in 1971 gave the 

BLM the responsibility to protect, manage, and control wild horses (Equus caballus) and burros 

(E. asinus) (BLM 2011a). The general management objectives for wild horses and burros are to 

(1) protect, maintain, and control viable, healthy herds with a diverse age structure, while 

retaining their free-roaming nature; (2) provide adequate habitat for wild horses through 

principles of multiple use and environmental protection; (3) maintain a thriving natural 

ecological balance with other resources; (4) provide opportunities for the public to view wild 

horses; and (5) protect them from unauthorized capture, branding, harassment, or death 

(BLM 1991a, 1996, 1997b, 2008b). 

 The BLM establishes HMAs for the maintenance of wild horse and burro herds in 

compliance with the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act (BLM 2004b). Herd population 

management is important for balancing herd numbers with forage resources and with other uses 

of the public and adjacent private lands (BLM 2004d, 2008c). Wild horses and burros that are 

found outside of HMAs are considered excess and are subject to removal (BLM 2004b). 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-41 

TABLE 3.1.2-1 Federal and State Recreation Areas within a 50-mi Radius of 

the Most Geologically Prospective Oil Shale Areas and STSAs 

Recreation Areaa Managing Agencyb

 

Colorado

Black Ridge Canyons Wilderness Area BLM 

Brown’s Park National Wildlife Refuge USFWS 

Canyon Pintado National Register Historic District BLM 

Colorado National Monument NPS 

Dinosaur Diamond National Scenic Byway DOT 

Dinosaur National Monument NPS 

Elkhead Reservoir CSP 

Flat Tops Wilderness Area USFS 

Grand Mesa National Forest USFS 

Grand Mesa Scenic and Historic Byway DOT 

Harvey Gap State Park CSP 

Highline Lake State Park CSP 

James M. Robb–Colorado River State Park CSP 

McInnis Canyons National Conservation Area BLM 

Maroon Bells Wilderness Area USFS 

Rabbit Valley Research Natural Area BLM 

Raggeds Wilderness Area USFS 

Routt National Forest USFS 

Horsethief Canyon State Wildlife Area BOR 

Rifle Falls State Park CSP 

Rifle Gap Reservoir and State Park BOR and CSP 

Sweitzer Lake State Park CSP 

Vega Reservoir and State Park BOR and CSP 

White River National Forest USFS 

Yampa River State Park CSP 

 

Utah

Anasazi Indian State Park USPR 

Arches National Park NPS 

Ashley National Forest USFS 

Bryce Canyon National Park NPS 

Box-Death Hollow Wilderness Area USFS 

Canyonlands National Park NPS 

Capitol Reef National Park NPS 

Cleveland-Lloyd Dinosaur Quarry BLM 

Dark Canyon Wilderness Area USFS 

Dead Horse Point State Park USPR 

Dinosaur Diamond National Scenic Byway DOT 

Dinosaur National Monument NPS 

Dixie National Forest USFS 

Edge of the Cedars State Park USPR 

Escalante State Park USPR 

Fantasy Canyon BLM 

Fishlake National Forest USFS 

Flaming Gorge National Recreation Area USFS 

 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-42 

TABLE 3.1.2-1 (Cont.) 

Recreation Areaa Managing Agencyb

 

Utah (Cont.)

Flaming Gorge–Uintas Scenic Byway DOT 

Glen Canyon National Recreation Area NPS 

Grand StaircaseEscalante National Monument BLM 

Green River State Park USPR 

Goblin Valley USPR 

High Uintas Wilderness Area USFS 

Huntington North Reservoir and Huntington State Park BOR and USPR 

Joes Valley Reservoir BOR 

Kodachrome Basin State Park USPR 

Manti-La Sal National Forest USFS 

Millsite State Park USPR 

Moon Lake Reservoir BOR 

Mt. Nebo Wilderness Area USFS 

Ouray National Wildlife Refuge USFWS 

Palisade State Park USPR 

Red Fleet Reservoir and State Park BOR and USPR 

Scofield Reservoir and State Park BOR and USPR 

Starvation Reservoir and State Park BOR and USPR 

Steinaker Reservoir and State Park BOR and USPR 

Uinta National Forest USFS 

Upper Stillwater Reservoir BOR 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest USFS 

Wyoming

Bear River State Park WSPCR 

Bridger National Forest USFS 

Bridger Wilderness Area USFS 

Cokeville Meadows National Wildlife Refuge USFWS 

Fitzpatrick Wilderness Area USFS 

Flaming Gorge National Recreation Area USFS 

Fort Bridger State Park WSPCR 

Fossil Butte National Monument NPS 

Medicine Bow National Forest USFS 

Oregon, Mormon, Pioneer, California, and Pony Express Trails BLM 

Popo Agie Wilderness Area USFS 

Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge USFWS 

Shoshone National Forest USFS 

Wasatch-Cache National Forest USFS 

a Includes areas that are within or partially within an approximately 50-mi radius.

b Abbreviations: BLM = Bureau of Land Management; BOR = Bureau of Reclamation; 

CSP = Colorado State Parks; DOT = U.S. Department of Transportation; NPS = 

National Park Service; USFS = U.S. Forest Service; USFWS = U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service; USPR = Utah State Parks and Recreation; WSPCR = Wyoming Department 

of State Parks and Cultural Resources. 

Sources: Recreation.gov (2006); Colorado State Parks (2006a); Utah State Parks and 

Recreation (2006); Wyoming Division of State Parks and Historic Sites (2006). 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-43 

Generally, their annual home range varies between 25 and 300 km2 (NatureServe 2011). Because 

wild horse herds can increase in size by up to 25% annually, they can affect the condition of their 

range and increase competitive pressure among wild horses, livestock, and wildlife. Wild horse 

and burro herds are maintained through gathers. Gathered horses and burros are either placed for 

adoption through the Adopt-a-Horse Program or otherwise placed in long-term holding facilities. 

The BLM is currently researching the use of immunocontraceptives to slow the reproductive rate 

of wild horses (BLM 2008c). 

 Wild horses generally occur in common social groups of several females that are tended 

by a dominant male. Young males are expelled from the social group when they are 1 to 3 years 

old and form bachelor groups (NatureServe 2011). They feed on grass and grasslike plants and 

browse on shrubs in winter. They visit watering holes daily and may dig to water in dry river 

beds (NatureServe 2011). 

 Wild burro males control a small territory during the breeding season. When not with 

females, older males are generally solitary. Females tend to be either alone with their foal or in 

groups with other females and foals (NatureServe 2011). The home range for the wild burro can 

range from 4 to 97 km2 (2 to 37 mi2). They feed on grasses, sedges, forbs, and browse. 

 Table 3.1.3-1 lists the wild horse and burro HMAs within or near the areas where oil 

shale or tar sands may be developed. Horse and burro populations that occurred within the 

HMAs during FY 2011 are also provided. Figure 3.1.3-1 shows the distribution of the wild horse 

and burro HMAs within the oil shale and tar sands study area. 

3.2 GEOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND SEISMIC SETTING 

 Extensive work has been conducted in the study area to describe the geologic setting 

(e.g., Cashion 1964; Culburtson and Pitman 1973; Dyni 2003; Blackett 1996). In addition, 

Chapter 2 and Appendices A and B provide general information regarding oil shale and tar sands 

resources and geology, respectively. A brief summary of the geologic setting for each major 

basin and STSA is presented in this section. 

3.2.1 Piceance Basin 

3.2.1.1 Physiography 

 The Piceance Basin is located mainly in the Colorado Plateau physiographic province 

(Figure 1.2-1). The Piceance Basin is simultaneously a structural, depositional, and drainage 

basin. The structural basin is downwarped and surrounded by uplifts resulting from the Laramide 

Orogeny. This tectonic activity created a depositional basin that filled with sediments from the 

surrounding uplands, mainly during the Tertiary period. The Piceance Basin is not referred to or 

described consistently in the published literature. Some publications describe the Piceance Basin 

as an area encompassing more than 7,000 mi2 and consisting of a northern province and a 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-44 

TABLE 3.1.3-1 Wild Horse Herd Management Areas within the Oil Shale and Tar Sands Study 

Area (FY 2011) 

Herd Management Area Name (County) 

Herd Management 

Area Size Populationa

BLM Acres Other Acres Horse Burro 

 

Colorado 

Piceance-East Douglas (Rio Blanco) 158,332 31,684 320 (135–235) 0 (0) 

 

Utah 

Canyonlands (Wayne) 77,254 12,138 0 (0) 0 (100) 

 

Muddy Creek (Emery) 252,086 31,388 72 (125) 0 (0) 

Range Creek (Carbon) 43,235 11,788 149 (125) 0 (0) 

Sinbad (Emery) 89,465 9,776 0 (0) 94 (70) 

 

Wyoming 

Little Colorado (Sweetwater, Sublette,

 and Lincoln) 

525,421 104,608 256 (100) 0 (0) 

White Mountain (Sweetwater) 207,372 184,496 545 (300) 0 (0) 

Salt Wells Creek (Sweetwater) 687,546 483,182 300 (365) 0 (0) 

Adobe Town (Sweetwater) 444,244 34,631 738 (800) 0 (0) 

a Numbers in parentheses are the appropriate management level (i.e., number of wild horses and burros that 

the HMA can support). 

Source: BLM (2011a). 

southern province that are separated approximately by the Colorado River and I-70. Other 

publications refer to the southern province as the Grand Mesa Basin. Oil shale is present in both 

provinces, with the richest oil shale deposits in the north, and smaller, isolated deposits in the 

south. 

3.2.1.2 Geologic Setting 

 Within the Piceance Basin, the upper bedrock stratigraphy consists of a series of basin-fill 

sediments from the Tertiary period (Topper et al. 2003). The uppermost unit is the Uinta 

Formation, which consists of up to 1,400 ft of Eocene-age sandstone, siltstone, and marlstone. 

Below the Uinta Formation is the Eocene Green River Formation, which can be up to 5,000 ft 

thick and includes four members: the Parachute Creek (keragenous dolomitic marlstone and 

shale), the Anvil Points (shale, sandstone, and marlstone), the Garden Gulch (claystone, siltstone, 

clay-rich oil shale, and marlstone), and the Douglas Creek (siltstone, shale, and sandstone) 

members. The Eocene-Paleocene Wasatch Formation underlies the Green River Formation. The 

Wasatch is a shale and sandstone formation. Below the Wasatch is the Cretaceous Mesaverde 

Group (sandstone and shale), the Cretaceous Mancos Shale, and older sedimentary formations 

atop Precambrian rock. 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-45 

FIGURE 3.1.3-1 Distribution of Wild Horse and Burro Herd Management Areas within the Oil 

Shale and Tar Sands Study Area 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-46 

 The main oil shale members of interest in the Piceance Basin are the Parachute Creek and 

Garden Gulch Members. The grade of oil shale varies with location and depth, but the Parachute 

Creek Member has the richest material and includes the Mahogany Zone. 

 Quaternary alluvium of varying thickness is present in the significant drainages of the 

basin. The alluvium can provide sand and gravel resources for construction projects, and the 

alluvium aquifers are often important sources of groundwater. 

3.2.1.3 Soils 

 Soils in the Piceance Basin vary in their thickness and character (DOI 1973). On upland 

areas, soils are generally rocky with shallow depth to bedrock. Slopes in these areas are typically 

10 to 60%. Eolian deposits (silt) may blanket the upland surface. Deep alluvial soils are found in 

drainageways and in valleys, with slopes less than 10%. Locally, valleys may contain colluvium 

from the side slopes. Erosion occurs mainly along roads and trails and in stream valleys. 

Intermittent creeks show head cutting, bank cutting, and deep gullying. Summer storms may 

cause bridge washouts and flash floods with extensive sheet erosion. 

 Biological soil crusts (also known as cryptobiotic crusts) may occur locally on 

undisturbed soils. The crusts are made of various algae, bacteria, mosses, and fungi. These crusts 

reduce wind and water erosion, fix atmospheric nitrogen, and contribute to organic soil matter. 

On upland ridges and cliffs, soil formation is minimal because of steep slopes and strong winds. 

Erosion due to a lack of vegetative cover and/or overgrazing is mainly by wind and has exposed 

thin loamy soils. Gullying is possible in small drainageways, as is mass wasting of weathered 

soil and rock. 

 The dissolution of salts in soil results in salinity problems for surface waters. This is 

described in Section 3.4.1.2. 

3.2.1.4 Seismicity and Landslide Susceptibility 

 Seismic risk in the Piceance Basin is fairly low according to the USGS, with a peak 

acceleration of about 5% of gravity, with a 10% probability of occurrence in 50 years, and a 

peak acceleration of 14 to 16% of gravity, with a 2% probability of occurrence in 50 years 

(Frankel et al. 2002). 

 Landslide risk has been mapped by the USGS (Radbruch-Hall et al. 1982). In the 

Piceance Basin, the susceptibility of the landscape to landslides is generally high, though the 

incidence of landslides in the basin is low (less than 1.5% of the area involved) in most of the 

basin. 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-47 

3.2.1.5 Mineral Resources 

 In addition to oil shale, the Piceance Basin contains the sodium minerals halite, 

dawsonite, and nahcolite, which are intermingled with the oil shale. Nahcolite is sodium 

bicarbonate and may be used as soda ash, to remove sulfur from industrial air emissions, and as a 

cattle feed supplement. It occurs in the Parachute Creek Member at proportions generally less 

than 5% by weight; however, in the lower oil shale zone it may average more than 30% by 

weight (DOI 1973). Dawsonite is dihydroxy sodium aluminum carbonate and is found in the 

lower portion of the northern province of the Piceance Basin. It is a source of alumina, and some 

intervals contain up to 3% by weight of equivalent extractable alumina (DOI 1973). Interbedded 

halite and oil shale are found in a sequence in the northern province of the Piceance Basin. The 

halite beds range from 1 to 30 ft in thickness (DOI 1973). Recoverable amounts of these 

minerals are estimated by the BLM (1983a) for several individual tracts of land within the basin. 

An area near the northern edge of the Piceance Basin that measures more than 100 mi2 is 

referred to as the Multimineral Zone. Here, the BLM does not allow oil shale development 

without suitable recovery of sodium minerals. In a surrounding area set aside for sodium leasing, 

sodium mineral extraction is not allowed to damage oil shale units. 

 Oil, natural gas, and coal are also present in the Piceance Basin (DOI 1973). The most 

productive zone is at the base of the Green River Formation and the underlying Cretaceous 

Mesaverde Group. Extensive natural gas drilling has taken place in the southern portion of the 

northern Piceance province. Coal underlies essentially the entire basin (DOI 1973). 

3.2.2 Uinta Basin 

3.2.2.1 Physiography 

 The overall Uinta Basin has an area of about 7,000 mi2, bounded by the Uinta Mountains 

to the north, the Wasatch Range to the west, the Roan Cliffs to the south, and the Douglas Creek 

Arch to the east (Cashion 1967). The basin is almost entirely in Utah, with a small portion of 

the overall basin extending into Colorado. The Uinta Basin is a structural, depositional, and 

topographic/drainage basin. This description focuses on the study area located in the geologically 

prospective east-central portion of the Uinta Basin (Figure 1.2-1). This region is primarily in 

Uintah County, Utah, with a small western extension into Duchesne County, Utah. 

3.2.2.2 Geologic Setting 

 The Uinta Basin contains a thickness of up to 15,000 ft of lacustrine and fluvial 

sedimentary rock of Eocene age above older sedimentary formations (Cashion 1967). 

 The uppermost bedrock unit is the Duchesne River Formation of fluvial sandstone and 

shale. Below this formation is the Uinta Formation of similar lithologies. Below the Uinta is the 

Green River Formation, which is composed of four members. The uppermost is the Evacuation 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-48 

Creek Member (also commonly known as the Uinta–Green River Transition), which is 

composed mainly of marlstone and siltstone and interfingers with the overlying Uinta Formation. 

The underlying Garden Gulch and Parachute Creek Members are of similar lithologies. The 

Parachute Creek Member is the main oil shale–bearing member, and includes the rich Mahogany 

Zone. The Douglas Creek Member is composed of mixed lithologies, including sandstone, 

siltstone, and limestone, and it interfingers with the overlying Garden Gulch and Parachute 

Creek Members and the underlying Wasatch Formation. The Wasatch is also an Eocene-age 

basin-fill unit and is composed of sandstone and shale. 

 Quaternary alluvium is present along the Uinta Basin’s major stream valleys. The 

alluvium can provide sand and gravel resources for construction projects, and the alluvium 

aquifers are often important sources of groundwater. 

3.2.2.3 Soils 

 Soils in the Uinta Basin are in two general groupings on the basis of the 

geomorphological setting (DOI 1973). Most of the basin’s flat areas are covered with shallow 

soils over weathered bedrock. These soils are typically either fine loam or silt over silty or clayey 

subsoils, or sandy or coarse loamy soils. Shale and/or sandstone bedrock is usually about 20 in. 

deep. Erosion is high during summer storms. 

 Along the floodplains and terraces of major rivers are deep loamy or silty soils over 

coarser subsoils. Erosion through stream cutting is high during high flow periods. 

 The dissolution of salts in soil results in salinity problems for surface waters. This is 

described in Section 3.4.1.2. 

 Overall, the basin’s erosion potential is critically high, although some areas are in the 

slight to moderate range, and some areas have erosion potential that is considered severe. 

 Biological soil crusts occur on undisturbed soils in some portions of Utah and may be 

found in the study area. The crusts are made of various algae, bacteria, mosses, and fungi. These 

crusts reduce wind and water erosion of the soils, fix atmospheric nitrogen, and contribute to soil 

organic matter (BLM 2002c). 

3.2.2.4 Seismicity and Landslide Susceptibility 

 Seismic risk in the Uinta Basin is fairly low according to the USGS, with a peak 

acceleration of about 6 to 7% of gravity, with a 10% probability of occurrence in 50 years, and a 

peak acceleration of about 14 to 18% of gravity, with a 2% probability of occurrence in 50 years 

(Frankel et al. 2002). 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-49 

 Landslide risk has been mapped by the USGS (Radbruch-Hall et al. 1982). In the Uinta 

Basin, the susceptibility of the landscape to landslides is low, as is the incidence of landslides 

(less than 1.5% of the area involved). 

3.2.2.5 Mineral Resources 

 Gilsonite, a black, brittle natural petroleum residue, is found in the Uinta Basin. 

Numerous vertical veins up to 7 mi long and 18 ft wide are found in the prospective oil shale 

area (Cashion 1967). Along the southern portion of the study area, part of the prospective oil 

shale area overlaps two STSAs—Hill Creek and P.R. Spring. Oil and gas have been produced 

from the lower part of the Green River Formation, the Wasatch Formation, and deeper 

Mesozoic-age rocks. Oil and natural gas are also present in the Unita Basin. 

3.2.3 Green River Basin and Washakie Basin 

3.2.3.1 Physiography 

 The Green River and Washakie Basins are located in the Wyoming Basin Physiographic 

Province of the Rocky Mountain Region. The oil shale areas are surrounded by the Wasatch, 

Green, Uintah, and Seminoe Mountains and by the Wind River and Medicine Bow Ranges. The 

overall basin has an area of about 6,700 mi2. This description focuses on the study areas located 

within the Green River and Washakie Basins (Figure 1.2-1). 

 The Green River Basin is mainly bounded by escarpments of the Green River and 

Wasatch Formations (Mason and Miller 2004). The Washakie Basin is a synclinal structure with 

faulting mainly along its southern and western edges. Its central portion has few faults 

(DOI 1973). The rim of the basin is formed by rock of the Green River Formation (Mason and 

Miller 2004). 

3.2.3.2 Geologic Setting 

 The Green River and the Washakie Basins are separated by the Rock Springs uplift. Each 

contains sedimentary rock with thicknesses of more than 20,000 ft. 

 In the Green River Basin, the uppermost unit is the Bridger Formation of fluvial and 

paludal (marsh) origin (Roehler 1992). The underlying Green River Formation is mostly 

lacustrine basin-fill rock. The uppermost member of the Green River Formation is the Luman 

Tongue, a unit of mudstone, sandstone, shale, oil shale, and coal over 200 ft thick. The Tipton 

Shale Member contains the Scheggs Bed (oil shale with sandstone, siltstone, and other 

lithologies) and the Rife Bed (oil shale interbedded with dolomite and tuff), totaling over 150 ft 

in thickness. The Wilkins Peak Member contains oil shale, shale, mudstone, siltstone, and 

sandstone, and is about 1,000 ft thick. The underlying Laney Member is about 1,300 ft thick and 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-50 

includes the LaClede Bed (oil shale and shale with interbedded siltstone, shale, and tuff), the 

Sand Butte Bed (sandstone and siltstone), and the Hartt Cabin Beds (mudstone, shale, dolomite, 

sandstone, and siltstone). The Wasatch Formation underlies the Green River Formation and is 

mostly fluvial and paludal material. The Green River Formation intertongues with both the 

overlying Bridger Formation and the underlying Wasatch Formation; it is replaced by these 

formations, and, in some locations around the basin, by the fluvial Battle Spring Formation. 

 In the Washakie Basin the stratigraphy is similar; however, the uppermost unit is referred 

to as the Washakie Formation rather than the Bridger Formation (Roehler 1992). The Green 

River Formation here is composed of four units. The uppermost, the Laney Member, is up to 

1,300 ft thick and consists of sandstone, siltstone, and mudstone, with generally low-grade oil 

shale zones. The Wilkins Peak Member is about 400 ft thick. Its upper portion is mudstone, 

siltstone, and sandstone, with minor amounts of oolitic and algal limestone and thin beds of lowgrade oil shale. The lower portion is mainly low-grade to moderate-grade oil shale with algal 

limestone and siltstone. The Tipton Member is about 200 ft thick and is made up of low- to 

moderate-grade oil shale with some algal limestone and siltstone. The Luman Tongue is about 

300 ft thick and is the lowermost unit of the Green River Formation. Its upper half is mainly 

low-grade oil shale with some limestone. The lower half is interbedded siltstone, sandstone, 

mudstone, low-grade oil shale, thin units of moderate-grade oil shale, limestone, shale, and coal. 

3.2.3.3 Soils 

 The soils of the Green River and Washakie Basins are developed on the Green River, 

Bridger, and Wasatch Formations (DOI 1973). The soils’ textures range from sandy to loamy to 

clayey. The soil surfaces are mainly level or moderately sloping, though roughly 20% of the area 

has steep slopes. Sixty percent of the basin area has shallow soil, with the bedrock within 20 in. 

of the surface. Erosion rates are generally moderate to high. Because of the aridity, wind erosion 

is often greater than water erosion. Biological soil crusts may occur locally on undisturbed soils. 

The crusts are made of various algae, bacteria, mosses, and fungi. These crusts reduce wind and 

water erosion, fix atmospheric nitrogen, and contribute to soil organic matter. 

 The dissolution of salts in soil results in salinity problems for surface waters. This is 

described in Section 3.4.1.2. 

3.2.3.4 Seismicity and Landslide Susceptibility 

 Seismic risk in the Green River Basin is fairly low according to the USGS, with a peak 

acceleration of about 5% of gravity, with a 10% probability of occurrence in 50 years, and a 

peak acceleration of about 18 to 22% gravity, with a 2% probability of occurrence in 50 years 

(Frankel et al. 2002). In the Washakie Basin, the seismic risk is also fairly low, with a peak 

acceleration value of about 7 to 8% of gravity, with a 10% probability of occurrence in 50 years, 

and a peak acceleration of about 16 to 20% of gravity, with a 2% probability of occurrence in 

50 years. 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-51 

 Landslide risk has been mapped by the USGS (Radbruch-Hall et al. 1982). In the Green 

River Basin, the susceptibility of the landscape to landslides is low in most areas, but high along 

the edges of the Flaming Gorge Reservoir and in an area northeast of the City of Green River. 

The incidence of landslides in the basin is low (less than 1.5% of the area involved) in most 

areas, but moderate (1.5 to 15% of the area) in a portion of the basin near the City of Green River 

and in a small zone in the southwestern portion of the basin. The Washakie Basin’s susceptibility 

to landslides is approximately evenly split between low and moderate areas. The incidence of 

landslides is low (less than 1.5% of the area). 

3.2.3.5 Mineral Resources 

 According to the DOI (1973), sodium minerals have not been discovered in the Washakie 

Basin. The central Green River Basin, however, has economic deposits of trona and halite in the 

Wilkins Peak Member of the Green River Formation (Roehler 1992). Approximately 500 m2 in 

the central Green River Basin are designated as the MMTA. Oil and natural gas are present in the 

Wasatch, Fort Union, and Mesaverde Formations and have been produced in commercial 

quantities at locations surrounding the Washakie Basin (DOI 1973). These formations underlie 

the basin at depths several thousand feet below the lowermost Green River Formation oil shales. 

Coal is also present below the oil shale in the Green River and Washakie Basins (DOI 1973; 

Mason and Miller 2004). 

3.2.4 Special Tar Sand Areas 

3.2.4.1 Physiography 

 Seven of the STSAs (Argyle Canyon, Asphalt Ridge, Hill Creek, Pariette, P.R. Spring, 

Raven Ridge, and Sunnyside) are located in the Uinta Basin (Figure 1.2-2). The physiographic 

setting in Section 3.2.2.1 applies to these sites. 

 The four STSAs in southeast-central Utah (San Rafael, Circle Cliffs, Tar Sand Triangle, 

and White Canyon) are in the Canyonlands section of the Colorado Plateau physiographic 

province (BLM 1984b) (Figure 1.2-2). San Rafael is located on the San Rafael Swell; White 

Canyon is on the northwest flank of the Abajo Mountains; Circle Cliffs is an upland area 

between the Aquarius Plateau and the Henry Mountains; and the Tar Sand Triangle is located at 

the southern end of the San Rafael Desert. 

3.2.4.2 Geologic Setting 

 The seven northern STSAs (Argyle Canyon, Asphalt Ridge, Hill Creek, Pariette, 

P.R. Spring, Raven Ridge, and Sunnyside) are located in the Uinta Basin, and most are in 

Tertiary-age sedimentary rocks. The geologic description in Section 3.2.3.2 applies to most of 

these sites. The exception is Asphalt Ridge, which is partially in the Cretaceous Mesaverde 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-52 

Formation (BLM 1984b). The rock units containing the tar are mostly fluvial sandstones, though 

some are lacustrine sediments. The bitumen is usually concentrated in the coarser facies of the 

sediments. 

 The four southern STSAs (San Rafael, Circle Cliffs, Tar Sand Triangle, and White 

Canyon) have bedrock of Permian and Triassic ages (BLM 1984b). The Tar Sand Triangle is in 

the Permian White Rim Sandstone, which may be dune sand or shallow marine sand deposits. 

Bitumen varies at the STSA along with the variations in sand texture and permeability. The 

Circle Cliffs and San Rafael STSAs are located in the lower Moenkopi Formation. This unit is a 

large deltaic deposit of fine- to medium-grained, moderately well-sorted sandstone of Triassic 

age. The White Canyon STSA occurs in the Hoskininni Sandstone, a Triassic shallow marine 

deposit. 

3.2.4.3 Soils 

 Soils at the 11 STSAs have a wide range of thicknesses and character because of spatially 

varying factors such as parent material, climate, topography, and vegetation. Data compiled by 

the BLM (1984b) indicate general conditions in mountainous areas (moist, dark or light) and 

valley or mesa areas (dry, light-colored). The soils are developed from sandstone, shale, and 

siltstone bedrock and have corresponding textures (e.g., sandy soils near more resistant ridges, 

clayey soils near shale outcrops). Alluvial fan soils are loamy and bouldery. Slopes vary within 

individual STSAs and among different STSAs. 

 The BLM (1984b) has evaluated the erosion potential of the STSA soils in terms of 

sediment yield classification. Overall, the largest category of the STSA land area is that of 

moderate sediment yield (0.2 to 0.5 ac-ft/mi2/yr), followed by high sediment yield 

(0.5 to 1.0 ac-ft/mi2/yr).6 The San Rafael STSA had the only significant amount of land area 

(18%) at a very high sediment yield (1.0 to 3.0 ac-ft/mi2/yr). 

 Biological soil crusts occur on undisturbed soils in some portions of Utah and may be 

found in the study area. The crusts are made of various algae, bacteria, mosses, and fungi. These 

crusts reduce wind and water erosion of the soils, fix atmospheric nitrogen, and contribute to soil 

organic matter (BLM 2002c). 

3.2.4.4 Seismicity and Landslide Susceptibility 

 Seismic risk among the STSAs varies with location, with the westernmost STSAs 

having higher risk than the others. Argyle Canyon, San Rafael, and Circle Cliffs have peak 

acceleration of roughly 10% of gravity with a 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years 

(Frankel et al. 2002). At the other eight STSAs, the seismic risk is lower, with peak acceleration 

values ranging from about 4 to 7% of gravity. 

 

6 An acre-foot is the volume of water that covers 1 acre (43,560 ft2) to a depth of 1 ft (0.3 m). 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-53 

 Landslide risk varies among the 11 STSAs. At most of the northern STSAs (Argyle 

Canyon, Pariette, Sunnyside, Hill Creek, P.R. Spring, and Raven Ridge), the susceptibility to 

landslides is low, and the incidence of landslides is low (less than 1.5% of the area) 

(Radbruch-Hall et al. 1982). The other northern STSA, Asphalt Ridge, is the same, except along 

its northern edge, where the incidence is moderate (1.5 to 15% of the land). At the San Rafael 

Swell, the incidence is low, and the susceptibility is approximately half low and half moderate 

across the scattered parcels of land. The Circle Cliffs STSA has low incidence in most of its area, 

but high incidence (more than 15% of the mapped area) in narrow bands along the western and 

eastern edges of the STSA. Landslide susceptibility here, however, is low. The White Canyon 

STSA’s land area is a mix of low, moderate, and high incidence, and low-to-moderate 

susceptibility. The Tar Sand Triangle STSA has low landslide incidence but mostly moderate 

landslide susceptibility. 

3.2.4.5 Mineral Resources 

 Other mineral resources are present or possibly present at the 11 STSAs (BLM 1984b). 

Oil and gas are present at P.R. Spring and Pariette, and are likely at Hill Creek and Raven Ridge. 

Oil and gas are possible, though not highly likely, at Argyle Canyon, Asphalt Ridge, Circle 

Cliffs, and White Canyon. 

 Oil shale of significant thickness and yield overlies the tar sands deposits along the 

northern edge of the P.R. Spring and Hill Creek STSAs. The Mahogany Oil Shale Zone is 

present at the Pariette and Raven Ridge STSAs; however, these oil shale deposits are not 

included in the oil shale study area defined for this PEIS, because they are of lower quality. 

 Coal of potential commercial thickness and quality occurs below the Sunnyside STSA; it 

is at a depth that would require underground rather than surface mining. Any potential coal beds 

in cretaceous rocks under the Hill Creek, P.R. Spring, and Asphalt Ridge STSAs would not 

likely be minable. 

 Uranium may occur locally above the Moenkopi Formation in the Shinarump 

Conglomerate Member of the Chinle Formation at the Circle Cliffs, Tar Sand Triangle, and 

White Canyon STSAs, and at the San Rafael STSA. 

 Copper occurs locally at the San Rafael STSA. 

3.3 PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

 Paleontological resources are the fossilized remains of ancient life forms, their imprints, 

or behavioral traces (e.g., tracks, burrows, residues), and the rocks in which they are preserved. 

These are distinct from human remains and artifacts, which are considered archaeological or 

historical materials. Fossil energy resources, such as coal and oil, are also generally excluded 

from the definition of paleontological resources. 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-54 

 Fossils have scientific and educational value because they are important in understanding 

the history of life on Earth and the biodiversity of the past, and in developing new ideas about 

ecology and evolution. On public lands, vertebrate and uncommon invertebrate and plant 

paleontological resources may only be collected for scientific and educational purposes under a 

permit. Common invertebrate and plant fossils may be collected for recreational use, but cannot 

be bartered or sold. Petrified wood is a mineral material that may be collected recreationally in 

limited amounts, or collected commercially under a mineral material contract. 

 Various statutes, regulations, and policies govern the management of paleontological 

resources on public lands. Recently Congress passed a paleontology law, entitled 

Paleontological Resources Preservation Act under the Omnibus Public Lands Act of 2009. The 

law establishes four main points: (1) paleontological resources collected under a permit are 

U.S. property and must be available for scientific research and public education; (2) the nature 

and location of paleontological resources on public lands must be kept confidential to protect 

those resources from theft and vandalism; (3) theft and vandalism of paleontological resources 

on public lands can result in civil and criminal penalties, including fines and/or imprisonment; 

and (4) curation of paleontological resources from federal lands in an approved repository. The 

law also requires an expansion of public awareness and education regarding the importance of 

paleontological resources on public lands and the development of management plans for 

inventory, monitoring, and scientific and educational use of paleontological resources 

(BLM 2009). 

 Additional statutes for management and protection include the Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) (P.L. 94–579, codified at 43 USC 1701–1782). Theft of 

Government Property and Destruction of Government Property (18 USC 642 and 1361 statutes), 

which penalize the theft or degradation of property of the U.S. government, may be used to 

supplement the criminal penalties under 16 USC 470aaa-5. Other federal acts—the Federal Cave 

Resources Protection Act (P.L. 100–691, 102 Stat. 4546; codified at 16 USC 4301) and the 

Archaeological Resources Protection Act (16 USC 470aa et seq.)—protect fossils found in 

significant caves and/or in association with archeological resources. 

 The large number of productive fossil-bearing geological formations found on federal 

land in the American West has encouraged the BLM to provide guidance on protecting this 

resource. Two Instruction Memoranda (IM) have been issued by the BLM to provide guidelines 

on implementing a Potential Fossil Yield Classification (PFYC) system for paleontological 

resources on public lands (IM 2008-009) (BLM 2007c) and for assessing potential impacts on 

paleontological resources (IM 2009-011) (BLM 2008b).7 Under the PFYC system, geologic 

units are classified from Class 1 to Class 5 on the basis of the relative abundance of vertebrate 

 

7 Formerly, the 2000 report by the Secretary of the Interior on Fossils on Federal Land (DOI 2000) provided 

guidance on the treatment of paleontological resources. Further guidance was provided in the BLM 

Manual 8270, Paleontological Resource Management (BLM 1998). Procedures for managing these resources 

were identified in an attachment to BLM Manual 8270, the Paleontological Resources Handbook H-8270-1, 

General Procedural Guidance for Paleontological Resource Management. These guidance documents have 

been superseded in part by the expanded and clarified guidance available in BLM’s Instruction Memoranda 

IM 2008-009 and IM 2009-011. 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-55 

fossils or uncommon invertebrate or plant fossils and their sensitivity to adverse impacts. A 

higher classification number indicates a higher fossil yield potential and greater sensitivity to 

adverse impacts. Table 3.3-1 provides a description of the five PFYC classes and the corollary 

management direction indicated for each class. 

TABLE 3.3-1 Potential Fossil Yield Classification Descriptions 

Class Description Basis Management Direction 

 

1 Geologic units that are not likely to 

contain recognizable fossil remains, 

including igneous and metamorphic 

units (excluding tuffs) and units that 

are Precambrian in age or older 

(i.e., older than 540 million years 

before present). 

The potential for impacting any 

fossils is negligible. The 

occurrence of significant 

fossils is nonexistent or 

extremely rare. No assessment 

or mitigation of paleontological 

resources is needed. 

Land manager’s concern for 

paleontological resources is 

negligible or not applicable. 

No assessment or mitigation 

needed except in very rare 

cases. 

 

2 Sedimentary geologic units that are 

not likely to contain vertebrate 

fossils or scientifically significant 

invertebrate fossils. These include 

geologic units in which vertebrate 

fossils or uncommon invertebrate or 

plant fossils are unknown or very 

rare, units that are younger than the 

Pleistocene Epoch (10,000 years 

before present), aeolian deposits, 

and units exhibiting significant 

diagenetic alteration. 

The potential for impacting 

vertebrate fossils or uncommon 

invertebrate or plant fossils is 

low. Localities containing 

important resources may exist, 

but would be rare and would 

not influence the classification. 

Management actions are not 

likely to be needed. 

Land manager’s concern for 

paleontological resources is 

low. No assessment or 

mitigation needed except in 

rare cases. 

 

3 Fossiliferous sedimentary geologic 

units where fossil content varies in 

significance, abundance, and 

predictable occurrence; or 

sedimentary units of unknown fossil 

potential. These include units in 

which vertebrate fossils and 

uncommon invertebrate or plant 

fossils are known to occur 

inconsistently (i.e., predictability is 

low), units of marine origin with 

sporadic known occurrences of 

vertebrate fossils, and poorly 

studied or poorly documented units 

(i.e., potential yield cannot be 

assessed without ground 

reconnaissance). 

This classification 

encompasses a broad range of 

potential impacts, including 

geologic units of unknown 

potential and units of moderate 

or infrequent fossil occurrence. 

Land manager’s concern for 

paleontological resources is 

moderate, or cannot be 

determined from existing data. 

Surface-disturbing activities 

may require field assessment 

to determine a further course 

of action. 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-56 

TABLE 3.3-1 (Cont.) 

Class Description Basis Management Direction 

 

4 Highly fossiliferous geologic units 

that regularly and predictably 

produce vertebrate fossils or 

uncommon invertebrate or plant 

fossils (as in Class 5), but have 

lowered risks of human-caused 

adverse impacts or natural 

degradation. These include units 

with extensive soil or vegetative 

cover or with limited bedrock 

exposures, areas in which exposed 

outcrop is less than 2 contiguous 

acres, and areas in which exposed 

outcrops form cliffs of sufficient 

height and slope to minimize 

impacts. 

The potential for impacting 

vertebrate fossils or uncommon 

invertebrate or plant fossils is 

moderate to high and is 

dependent on the proposed 

action. The geologic unit is 

considered a Class 5, but the 

risk of potential impacts is 

reduced by the presence of a 

protective layer of soil, thin 

alluvial material, or other 

mitigating circumstance. 

Land manager’s concern for 

paleontological resources is 

moderate to high, depending 

on the proposed action. A field 

survey and assessment by a 

qualified paleontologist are 

often needed to assess local 

conditions. Approval from the 

authorized officer is required 

for project to proceed. 

Resource preservation and 

conservation through 

controlled access or special 

management designation 

should be considered. 

Mitigation may be necessary 

before and/or during these 

actions. On-site monitoring 

may also be necessary during 

construction activities. 

 

5 Highly fossiliferous geologic units 

that regularly and predictably 

produce vertebrate fossils or 

uncommon invertebrate or plant 

fossils, and that are at risk of 

human-caused adverse impacts or 

natural degradation. Vertebrate 

fossils or uncommon invertebrate or 

plant fossils are known and 

documented to occur consistently, 

predictably, or abundantly. Units 

are exposed, with little or no soil or 

vegetative cover. Outcrop areas are 

extensive; exposed bedrock areas 

are larger than 2 contiguous acres. 

The potential for impacting 

significant fossils is high. 

Vertebrate fossils or 

uncommon invertebrate or 

plant fossils are known or can 

be expected to occur. 

Land manager’s concern for 

paleontological resources is 

high. A field survey and 

assessment by a qualified 

paleontologist is required in 

advance of surface-disturbing 

activities or land tenure 

adjustments. Approval from 

the authorized officer is 

required for project to proceed. 

Resource preservation and 

conservation through 

controlled access or special 

management designation may 

be appropriate. Mitigation will 

often be necessary before 

and/or during these actions. 

On-site monitoring may also 

be necessary during 

construction activities. 

Source: BLM (2006i). 

 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-57 

 An overview report by Murphey and Daitch (2007) describing significant paleontological 

resources in the oil shale and tar sands study areas was prepared in support of the 2008 PEIS. 

The descriptions in the following sections are based on this report. Table 3.3-2 provides a 

summary of the programmatic-level sensitivities of geologic units within each of the basins that 

could potentially be affected by oil shale or tar sands development. Sensitivity maps 

(1:500,000 scale) showing areas with the highest potential for significant paleontological 

resources are presented in the overview report. The BLM is currently developing sensitivity 

maps with a finer scale. 

3.3.1 Piceance Basin 

 Several geologic units dating from the Paleocene to the Middle Eocene (approximately 

66 to 40 million years ago) within the Piceance Basin have the highest potential to contain 

significant paleontological resources and warrant consideration for assessing and mitigating 

potential impacts related to oil shale development. They include (from oldest to youngest) the 

Atwell Gulch, Molina, and Shire Members of the Debeque (Wasatch) Formation; the Parachute 

Creek Member of the Green River Formation; and the Uinta Formation (Table 3.3-2). These 

units are covered locally by younger surficial deposits (alluvium, colluvium, landslide deposits, 

and glacial drift) of Pleistocene and Holocene age that are designated PFYC Class 2. 

3.3.2 Uinta Basin 

 Several geologic units dating from the Late Cretaceous to the Middle Eocene 

(approximately 100 to 40 million years ago) within the Uinta Basin have the highest potential to 

contain significant paleontological resources and warrant consideration for assessing and 

mitigating potential impacts related to oil shale development. They include (from oldest to 

youngest) the Mesaverde Group; the Main Body of the Wasatch Formation; the Douglas Creek 

Member of the Green River Formation at Raven Ridge and Nine Mile Canyon; the Parachute 

Creek Member of the Green River Formation; the Wagonhound and Myton Members of Uinta 

Formation; and the Brennan Basin and LaPoint Members of the Duchesne River (Table 3.3-2). 

These units are covered locally by younger surficial deposits (alluvium, colluvium, pediment 

deposits, landslide deposits, and glacial outwash and till) of Pleistocene and Holocene age that 

are designated PFYC Class 2. 

3.3.3 Green River and Washakie Basins 

 Several geologic units dating from the Early to Middle Eocene (approximately 56 to 

40 million years ago) within the Greater Green River Basin (including the Washakie Basin) have 

the highest potential to contain significant paleontological resources and warrant consideration 

for assessing and mitigating potential impacts related to oil shale development. They include 

(from oldest to youngest) the LaBarge Member, New Fork Tongue, Niland Tongue, Main Body, 

Upper Member, Cathedral Bluffs Tongue, and Hiawatha Member of the Wasatch Formation; the 

Laney and Fossil Butte Members of the Green River Formation; the Blacks Fork, Twin Buttes, 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-58 

TABLE 3.3-2 Summary of Programmatic-Level Paleontological Sensitivities of Geologic Units 

within the Piceance, Uinta, and Greater Green River Basins 

Geologic Unit Age Typical Fossils 

BLM 

Designationa

PFYC 

Designationb

 

Piceance Basin 

Alluvium, colluvium, 

landslide deposits, 

and glacial drift 

Holocene None in deposits of Holocene age 

unless reworked from older 

sediments 

Condition 3 Class 2 

 

Alluvium, colluvium, 

landslide deposits, 

and glacial drift 

Pleistocene Scattered vertebrates, 

invertebrates, and plants occur 

locally 

Condition 2 Class 2 

 

Uinta Formation Middle Eocene Localized occurrences of 

vertebrates (mammals, reptiles), 

invertebrates (mollusks), and 

plants (leaves and wood) 

Condition 1 Class 4/5 

 

Green River 

Formation: Parachute 

Creek Member 

Middle Eocene Locally abundant vertebrates 

(fishes, amphibians, reptiles, 

birds, and mammals), 

invertebrates (insects, arthropods, 

and mollusks), plants (leaves, 

flowers, and wood), and 

ichnofossils 

Condition 1 Class 4/5 

 

Green River 

Formation: Anvil 

Points and Garden 

Gulch Members 

Early Eocene Vertebrates (mostly fish), 

invertebrates (mollusks), and 

plants (leaves) 

Condition 2 Class 3 

 

DeBeque (Wasatch 

Formation), Atwell 

Gulch, Molina and 

Shire Members 

Paleocene and 

Early Eocene 

Locally abundant vertebrates 

(fishes, amphibians, reptiles, 

birds, and mammals), 

invertebrates (mollusks), and 

plants 

Condition 1 Class 4/5 

 

Uinta Basin 

Alluvium, colluvium, 

landslide deposits, 

pediment deposits, 

glacial outwash, and 

till 

Holocene None in deposits of Holocene age 

unless reworked from older 

sediments 

Condition 3 Class 2 

 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-59 

TABLE 3.3-2 (Cont.) 

Geologic Unit Age Typical Fossils 

BLM 

Designationa

PFYC 

Designationb

 

Uinta Basin (Cont.) 

Alluvium, colluvium, 

landslide deposits, 

pediment deposits, 

glacial outwash, and 

till 

Pleistocene Scattered vertebrates, 

invertebrates, and plants occur 

locally 

Condition 2 Class 2 

 

Duchesne River 

Formation: Brennan 

Basin and Lapoint 

Members 

Middle Eocene Vertebrate (mammal) fossil 

accumulations occur locally but 

are uncommon 

Condition 2 Class 4/5 

 

Duchesne River 

Formation: Dry Gulch 

Creek and Starr Flat 

Members 

Middle Eocene Vertebrate (mammal) fossils rare 

in Dry Gulch Member; no records 

of fossils in Starr Flat Member 

Condition 2 Class 3 

 

Uinta Formation: 

Wagonhound and 

Myton Members 

Middle Eocene Locally abundant vertebrates 

(mammals, reptiles), invertebrates 

(mollusks), and plants (leaves and 

wood) 

Condition 1 Class 4/5 

 

Green River 

Formation: Parachute 

Creek Member 

Middle Eocene Locally abundant vertebrates 

(fishes, amphibians, reptiles, 

birds, and mammals), 

invertebrates (insects, arthropods, 

and mollusks), plants (leaves, 

flowers, and wood), and 

ichnofossils 

Condition 1 Class 4/5 

 

Green River 

Formation: Douglas 

Creek Member 

Early and 

Middle Eocene 

Scarce vertebrates (mostly fish 

but also reptiles and uncommon 

mammals), vertebrate trackways, 

locally common invertebrates 

(mollusks) and plants (leaves) 

Condition 2 Class 3 

(Class 4/5 at 

Raven Ridge 

and Nine 

Mile 

Canyon) 

 

Wasatch Formation: 

Renegade Tongue 

Middle Eocene Scattered, poorly preserved 

vertebrates and plants (leaves and 

wood) 

Condition 2 Class 3 

 

Wasatch Formation: 

main body 

Paleocene and 

Early Eocene 

Locally abundant vertebrates 

(fishes, amphibians, reptiles, 

birds, and mammals), 

invertebrates (mollusks), and 

plants 

Condition 1 Class 4/5 

 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-60 

TABLE 3.3-2 (Cont.) 

Geologic Unit Age Typical Fossils 

BLM 

Designationa

PFYC 

Designationb

 

Uinta Basin (Cont.) 

Mesaverde Group Late 

Cretaceous 

(Santonian and 

Campanian) 

Moderately abundant terrestrial 

and marine vertebrates (fish, 

amphibians, reptiles, including 

dinosaurs, mammals), 

invertebrates (mollusks), and 

terrestrial plants 

Condition 1 Class 4/5 

 

Greater Green River 

Basin

 

Alluvium, colluvium, 

landslide deposits, 

sand dune deposits, 

pediment deposits, 

and alluvial fan 

deposits 

Holocene None in deposits of Holocene age 

unless reworked from older 

sediments 

Condition 3 Class 2 

 

Alluvium, colluvium, 

landslide deposits, 

sand dune deposits, 

pediment deposits, 

and alluvial fan 

deposits 

Pleistocene Scattered vertebrates, 

invertebrates, and plants occur 

locally 

Condition 2 Class 2 

 

Browns Park 

Formation 

Middle and 

Late Miocene 

Vertebrates (mammals and turtles) 

rare; mammal tracks have also 

been reported; silicified wood is 

locally common 

Condition 2 Class 3 

 

Bishop Conglomerate Late Oligocene Rare unidentified mammal bone 

fragments, reworked Paleozoic 

invertebrates 

Condition 3 Class 2 

 

Washakie Formation: 

Kinney Rim and 

Adobe Town 

Members 

Middle Eocene Vertebrates (fishes, amphibians, 

reptiles, and mammals) locally 

abundant in both members; 

invertebrates (mollusks) and 

plants (wood) locally common 

Condition 1 Class 4/5 

 

Bridger Formation: 

Blacks Fork, Twin 

Buttes, Turtle Bluff 

Members 

Middle Eocene Vertebrates (fishes, amphibians, 

reptiles, birds, and mammals) 

locally abundant; invertebrates 

(mollusks) and plants (wood and 

leaves) locally common; insect 

and vertebrate ichnofossils also 

present 

Condition 1 Class 4/5 

 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-61 

TABLE 3.3-2 (Cont.) 

Geologic Unit Age Typical Fossils 

BLM 

Designationa

PFYC 

Designationb

 

Greater Green River 

Basin (Cont.)

 

Green River 

Formation: Laney and 

Fossil Butte Members 

Early and 

Middle Eocene 

Vertebrates (fishes, amphibians, 

reptiles, birds, and mammals) 

locally abundant; invertebrates 

(insects, arthropods, and 

mollusks), plants, ichnofossils 

locally abundant 

Condition 1 Class 4/5 

 

Green River 

Formation: Luman 

Tongue, Fontenelle 

Tongue, Tipton Shale 

Member, Wilkins 

Peak Member, 

Angelo Member 

Early and 

Middle Eocene 

Uncommon but locally present 

vertebrates (fishes, reptiles, and 

mammals), scattered plants, 

locally common invertebrates 

(mollusks and ostracods) 

Condition 2 Class 3 

 

Wasatch Formation: 

LaBarge Member, 

New Fork Tongue, 

Niland Tongue, Main 

Body, Upper Member, 

Cathedral Bluffs 

Tongue, Hiawatha 

Member 

Mostly Early 

Eocene, 

Cathedral 

Bluffs Tongue 

is Early and 

Early-Middle 

Eocene 

Locally abundant vertebrates 

(fishes, amphibians, reptiles, 

birds, and mammals), plants, 

invertebrates (mollusks), and 

ichnofossils 

Condition 1 Class 4/5 

 

STSAs 

Alluvium, colluvium, 

slope wash, and 

landslide deposits 

Holocene None in deposits of Holocene age 

unless reworked from older 

sediments 

Condition 3 Class 2 

 

Alluvium, colluvium, 

slope wash, and 

landslide deposits 

Pleistocene Scattered vertebrates, 

invertebrates, and plants occur 

locally 

Condition 2 Class 2 

 

Chinle Formation: 

Temple Mountain, 

Shinarump, Monitor 

Butte, Moss Back, 

Petrified Forest, Owl 

Rock, and Church 

Rock Members 

Upper Triassic Locally occurring vertebrates 

(fishes, amphibians, and reptiles), 

plants, and invertebrates 

Condition 2 Class 4/5 

 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-62 

TABLE 3.3-2 (Cont.) 

Geologic Unit Age Typical Fossils 

BLM 

Designationa

PFYC 

Designationb

 

STSAs 

Moenkopi Formation: 

Black Dragon and 

Torrey and Moody 

Canyon Members 

Lower and 

Middle 

Triassic 

Locally occurring vertebrates 

(fishes, amphibians, and reptiles), 

plants, and invertebrates 

Condition 2 Class 3 

 

Moenkopi Formation: 

Sinbad Limestone 

Member 

Lower Triassic Locally abundant marine 

invertebrates 

Condition 3 Class 2 

 

Kaibab Limestone Upper Permian Locally abundant marine 

invertebrates 

Condition 3 Class 2 

 

Cutler Group, Cutler 

Formation undivided, 

Halgaito Formation 

Upper 

Pennsylvanian 

and Permian 

Locally occurring vertebrates 

(fishes, amphibians, and reptiles), 

plants, and invertebrates 

Condition 2 Class 3 

 

Organ Rock 

Formation: Cutler 

Group, Cedar Mesa 

Sandstone, White 

Rim Sandstone, 

De Chelly Sandstone 

Upper 

Pennsylvanian 

and Permian 

Uncommon vertebrates and 

invertebrate ichnofossils 

Condition 2 Class 2 

a BLM designations are defined as follows: Condition 1, areas known to contain vertebrate fossils or 

noteworthy occurrences of invertebrate or plant fossils; Condition 2, areas with exposures of geologic units 

or settings that have high potential to contain vertebrate fossils or noteworthy occurrences of invertebrate or 

plant fossils; and Condition 3, areas that are very unlikely to produce vertebrate fossils or noteworthy 

occurrences of invertebrate or plant fossils on the basis of their surficial geology (e.g., igneous or 

metamorphic rocks; extremely young alluvium, colluvium, or eolian deposits; or the presence of deep soils). 

b See Table 3.3-1 for PFYC descriptions. 

Source: Adapted from Murphey and Daitch (2007). 

and Turtle Bluff Members of the Bridger Formation; and the Kinney Rim and Adobe Town 

Members of the Washakie Formation (Table 3.3-2). These units are covered locally by younger 

surficial deposits (alluvium, colluvium, landslide deposits, sand dune deposits, pediment 

deposits, and alluvial fan deposits) of Pleistocene and Holocene age that are designated PFYC 

Class 2. 

3.3.4 Special Tar Sand Areas 

 Several geologic units of Upper Triassic age (approximately 235 to 202 million years 

ago) within the STSAs have been classified as having the highest potential to contain significant 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-63 

paleontological resources and warrant consideration for assessing and mitigating potential 

impacts related to tar sands development. They include the Temple Mountain, Shinarump, 

Monitor Butte, Moss Back, Petrified Forest, Owl Rock, and Church Rock Members of the Chinle 

Formation (Table 3.3-2). These units are covered locally by younger surficial deposits (alluvium, 

colluvium, slope wash, and landslide deposits) of Pleistocene and Holocene age that are 

designated PFYC Class 2. 

3.4 WATER RESOURCES 

 The oil shale basins and STSAs in this PEIS are located within the Upper Colorado River 

Basin. Specifically, the oil shale is present in the White River hydrologic basin in Colorado, the 

Uinta Basin in Utah, and the Green River Basin in Wyoming. The STSAs are situated in the 

Uinta and West Colorado River Basins in Utah. Colorado’s Piceance Basin, where the oil shale 

occurs, is located in the White River hydrologic basin. Similarly, the geologic Green River and 

Washakie Basins are in the hydrologic Green River Basin. 

 Water use in the Colorado River Basin is highly developed, allocated, and regulated. In 

describing the water resources related to oil shale and tar sands development, it is appropriate to 

describe the Upper Colorado River Basin as a whole, with emphasis on hydrologic basins where 

the oil shale and tar sands are located. This is because intra- and interbasin water transfers are 

common in the region, and water allocation of the Upper Colorado River Basin Compact is 

prescribed by state and not by hydrologic basin. In the following subsections, important aspects 

of the legal framework related to water resources are introduced. The existing groundwater and 

surface water resources, water quality, current water uses, and resource constraints within each 

oil shale basin or STSA are described. 

3.4.1 Legal Framework of the Upper Colorado River Basin 

3.4.1.1 Water Allocation 

 The use of the Colorado River Basin water is shared by many states and Mexico. On the 

basis of the Colorado River Compact of 1922, the Colorado River Basin is divided into the 

Upper Colorado River Basin and Lower Colorado River Basin at Lees Ferry (just below the 

confluence of the Paria River and the Colorado River near the Utah-Arizona boundary). The 

upper basin and the lower basin were each apportioned a consumptive use of 7.5 million ac-ft 

of water annually, based on an assumption of 17.5 million ac-ft of virgin flow for the Colorado 

River. The assumption was demonstrated to be an overestimate and reduced to 15 million ac-ft 

in a hydrologic study by the BOR (BOR 1988; CWCB 2004) by using historical data collected 

from 1906 and 1986. This assumes that the upper Colorado Basin states are obligated to deliver 

7.5 million ac-ft to the lower basin states and 0.75 million ac-ft to Mexico. The hydrologic 

determination study (BOR 1988) concluded that the Upper Basin states could have 

6 million ac-ft of water and rarely triggered water calls from the Lower Basin States. The 

6 million ac-ft is assumed for analyses in this PEIS. In the Upper Colorado River Basin Compact 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-64 

of 1948, the water of the Upper Colorado River Basin was further allocated among the states of 

Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming. Arizona has a fixed allocation of 

50,000 ac-ft annually. The remainder is shared by Colorado (51.75%), New Mexico (11.25%), 

Utah (23%), and Wyoming (14%) (DOI 2005). If the other Upper Basin States do not use their 

full allocation, Colorado is entitled to use those states’ unused shares in a given year. 

3.4.1.2 Basin Salinity and Surface Water Quality 

 Salinity is a key water quality issue in the basin. The major sections of the CWA that 

relate to salinity control are Section 302 (Water Quality Related Effluent Limitations), 

Section 303 (Water Quality Standards), Section 313 (Federal Facilities Pollution Control), 

Section 401 (State Certification of Federal Permits), Section 402 (NPDES), and Section 404 

(Permits for Dredged or Fill Material). In 1973, to support compliance with Section 303 

requirements to establish water quality standards and implementation plans, the CRBSCF was 

formed, including the Basin States of Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, 

Utah, and Wyoming. In 1974 Congress enacted the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act 

(P.L. 93-320). In addition, in 1974, the EPA enacted a regulation setting forth the basinwide 

salinity control policy for the Colorado River Basin. In 1975 the CRBSCF proposed, the Basin 

States adopted, and the EPA approved water quality standards for the Colorado River Basin, 

including numeric criteria, and a plan of implementation to control salinity increases in the 

Colorado River. In 1984 Congress amended the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act 

(P.L. 98-569) and directed the BLM to implement a comprehensive program to minimize salt 

loading in the Colorado River Basin. 

 In 1995 P.L. 104-20 authorized the BOR to implement a basinwide approach to salinity 

control throughout the Colorado River Basin in its Salinity Control Program. The new authorities 

also allow the BOR to respond quickly to time-sensitive opportunities provided by other 

cost-sharing partners (states and federal agencies), resulting in the implementation of more 

cost-effective measures for salinity control. Since 1995, the BOR has solicited proposals and 

awarded funds to various salinity control projects under its Basinwide Salinity Control Program. 

This program continues to assist with projects for controlling salinity, including funding 

landowners who install salinity control measures. 

 The BLM coordinates salinity control activities with the CRBSCF, the Basin States, the 

BOR, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service 

(NRCS). These agencies receive Congressional funding for salinity control. Other federal 

agencies that have a stake and participate in the CRBSCF Work Group meetings include the 

EPA, USFWS, and USGS. 

 The BLM has conducted ongoing salinity control activities to minimize salt loading from 

BLM-administered lands within the Upper Colorado River Basin since 1973. Point-source 

controls were implemented beginning in FY 1974. The BLM created a four-person salinity team 

to evaluate landscape processes and land management actions relevant to the Colorado River 

Basin salinity during the period 1975 to 1984. Non–point-source control activities began in 1980, 

following intensive studies of salt occurrence and salt behavior on arid rangelands (BLM 1987c). 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-65 

In addition, prior to 1984, the USDA conducted salinity control activities as part of the 

Agricultural Conservation Program administered by the Agricultural Stabilization and 

Conservation Service and the Soil Conservation Service. P.L. 98-569 authorized the USDA 

Colorado River Salinity Control Program (CRSCP) through mid-1996. The 1996 Farm Bill, 

P.L. 104-127, combined the CRSCP into the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP). 

EQIP was reauthorized through 2007 under the 2002 Farm Bill (P.L. 107-171). The goals of 

these programs are to minimize salt loading in the Colorado River Basin and to offset the effects 

of additional water development (DOI 2005). 

 Salinity has long been recognized as one of the major problems of the river 

(CRBSCF 2005). The river carries an average salt load of approximately 4.4 million tons 

annually past Lees Ferry, Arizona. It is estimated that BLM-administered lands in the Upper 

Colorado River Basin contribute about 700,000 tons of salt a year from surface runoff. The 

remaining 3.7 million tons are contributed primarily by groundwater inflow and saline springs, 

and runoff from other federal, tribal, state, and private lands (DOI 2005). 

 The sources of salinity in the basinwide Colorado River were estimated to be 47% from 

natural sources, 37% from irrigation, 12% from reservoir leaching, and 4% from municipal and 

industrial activities. In 2004, the salinity control programs for the BOR, USDA, and the BLM 

prevented a total of 1,072,000 tons of salts from entering the river. A goal has been set to prevent 

an additional 728,000 tons/yr from entering the river by 2025 basinwide (DOI 2005). 

 The quality of the surface water in the four oil shale basins generally declines from their 

headwaters in the mountain areas to the basins. As the Colorado River reaches the basins where 

sedimentary rocks dominate, more soluble minerals containing sodium, sulfate, and chloride 

become available, resulting in an increase of dissolved salt and sediment (USGS 1968). Urban 

development in the basins and heavy agricultural uses of surface water in areas underlain by 

shaley sedimentary rocks also contribute to the increase of dissolved salt and sediment content in 

surface water bodies (Spahr et al. 2000). 

 The BLM’s efforts to reduce salt loading due to activities conducted on 

BLM-administered lands would be applicable to future oil shale and tar sands development 

activities. The agency has developed a strategy to be implemented through its RMPs that 

primarily relies on best management of the basic resource base, including identifying targeted 

watersheds with high salt loading, improving vegetation cover to reduce surface runoff and soil 

erosion on rangelands, and proper land uses. In addition, the BLM has developed a water source 

inventory to identify saline springs in the basin (DOI 2005). 

3.4.1.3 Impaired Streams under the Clean Water Act 

 Under the CWA, each state is required to establish and maintain water quality standards 

to protect, restore, and preserve its water quality. In addition to numerical water quality 

standards, states also establish narrative criteria that include designated, specific chemical and 

biological criteria necessary for protecting designated uses, and an antidegradation policy. When 

a lake, river, or stream fails to meet the narrative criteria, Section 303(d) of the CWA directs the 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-66 

state to place the water body on the 303(d) list of “impaired” waters. Water quality criteria called 

Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) are often developed for impaired waters. A TMDL 

establishes the maximum amount of a pollutant allowed in the water while maintaining all of its 

designated beneficial uses. 

 Table 3.4.1-1 lists the impaired water bodies located within and upstream of the target oil 

shale basins and STSAs in 2012. In Colorado, several streams in the Piceance Basin have 

become further impaired in recent years. Since 2006, four stream segments in the Colorado oil 

shale basin were added to the 303(d) list for failing to meet Fe (Trec) or aquatic life standards 

(CDPHE 2012a). Impaired streams in the oil shale and tar sands areas in Utah do not meet the 

total dissolved solids (TDS) water quality standard; Colorado and Wyoming do not have a TDS 

water quality standard. Other stream segments in the oil shale and tar sands areas of Utah are 

not meeting the selenium, boron, arsenic, temperature, and/or benthic-macroinvertebrate 

bioassessment standards. Many of the stream segments in Utah have been newly recognized as 

impaired since the 2008 PEIS was published, indicating a recent decline in water quality in the 

Unita Basin. Fecal coliform is the major impairment in the Green River Basin in Wyoming; the 

source remains unknown. Stream segments in the Green River Basin also do not meet the E. coli, 

chloride, pH, and habitat alteration standards. There have been no new stream segments added to 

the 303(d) list in the Green River Basin since 2006. 

3.4.1.4 Water Use 

 Data for water use provided by the states and the BOR are generally organized by 

watersheds or hydrologic basins. The boundaries of these hydrologic basins do not necessarily 

coincide with the geologic basins (such as the Piceance Basin, Green River Basin, Uinta Basin, 

and Washakie Basin), although the same names are used. Generally, the geologic Piceance Basin 

is inside the hydrologic White River Basin. The geologic oil shale Uinta Basin is within the 

hydrologic Uinta Basin. The hydrologic Green River Basin covers an area that includes both the 

geologic Green River Basin and the Washakie Basin. The STSAs are located within the 

hydrologic Uinta Basin and the West Colorado River Basin in Utah. 

 In the following discussion, the water uses in each hydrologic basin of the Upper 

Colorado River Basin are provided by state for the municipal and industrial (M&I), self-supplied 

industry (SSI), and agricultural sectors. These data are useful because the water allocation in the 

Upper Colorado River Compact is based on individual states. Water demand and consumptive 

use, as well as availability by state, can then be compared. In addition, major streamflows within 

the areas where the oil shale is located are also listed. The streamflow data can be used to 

compare with the possible water needs for oil shale or tar sands development (see Sections 4.5 

and 5.5), and to demonstrate whether interbasin water transfer is likely to occur. The water use 

data listed in this section cover 2000 as the base year and projected water use in 2030 for 

Colorado and Wyoming, and in 2050 for Utah,8 taking into account population and industrial 

 

8 The water availability is projected to different years based on the availability of projection data from the three 

states. 
TABLE 3.4.1-1 Water-Impaired Stream Segments in Oil Shale Basins and STSAs in 2012 Hydrologic Basin Subbasin Hydrologic Unit Code Stream Location 

Oil Shale Colorado White River Basin Piceance Basin COLCWH13c Yellow Creek Mainstream of Yellow Creek from immediately below the confluence with Barcus Creek to the confluence with the White River 

COLCWH14a Piceance Creek Mainstream of Piceance Creek from the source to a point just below the confluence with Hunter Creek COLCWH15 Piceance Creek Mainstream of Piceance Creek from Ryan Gulch to the confluence with the White River; the Dry Fork of Piceance Creek, from Little Reigan Gulch to Piceance Creek 

COLCWH20 Black Sulphur Creek Mainstreams of Black Sulphur Creek from the source to Piceance Creek 

Utah 

Uinta Basin Ashly-Brush Basin UT14060002-001_00 Lower Ashley Creek and 

tributariesa

Ashley Creek and tributaries from Green River confluence to Vernal sewage lagoons 

 UT14060002-002_00 Middle Ashley Creek and 

tributariesa

Ashley Creek and tributaries from Vernal sewage lagoons to Dry Fork confluence 

 UT14060002-003_00 Brush Creek and 

tributariesa

Brush Creek and tributaries from confluence with Green River to Red Fleet Dam but excluding Little Brush Creek 

 UT14060002-008_00 Lower Dry Fork Creek 

and tributariesa

Dry Fork and tributaries from confluence with Ashley Creek to USFS boundary 

 Duchesne Basin UT14060003-002_00 Duchesne River-2 and 

tributariesa

Duchesne River and tributaries from confluence with Uinta River to Myton 

 UT14060003-005_00 Antelope Creek and 

tributariesa

Antelope Creek and tributaries from Duchesne River confluence to headwaters 
TABLE 3.4.1-1 (Cont.) Hydrologic Basin Subbasin Hydrologic Unit Code Stream Location 

Utah (Cont.) UT14060003-006_00 Duchesne River-3a Duchesne River from Myton to Strawberry River confluence 

Lower Green – Desolation Canyon Basin UT14060005-002_00 Pariette Draw Creek and tributaries Pariette Draw Creek and tributaries from Green River confluence to headwaters Lower White UT14050007-003_00 Evacuation Creek Evacuation Creek and tributaries from the confluence with White River to headwaters 

Strawberry Basin UT14060004-001_00 Strawberry River-1a Strawberry River from confluence with Duchesne River to Starvation Dam 

UT14060004-002_00 Indian Canyon Creek and tributariesa Indian Canyon Creek and tributaries from Strawberry River confluence to headwaters 

UT14060004-005_00 Avintaquin Creek and 

tributariesa

Avintaquin Creek and tributaries from Strawberry River confluence to headwaters 

 Willow Basin UT14060006-001_00 Willow Creek and 

tributaries 

Willow Creek and tributaries from Green River confluence to Meadow Creek confluence (excluding Hill Creek) 

Wyoming 

Green River Basin Bitter Creek Basin WYGR140401050506_01 Bitter Creek Bitter Creek from the confluence with the Green 

River upstream to Point of Rocks 

 WYGR140401050808_01 Killpecker Creeka Killpecker Creek from the confluence with Bitter 

Creek upstream to Reliance 

 Blacks Fork Basin WYGR140401070106_01 Blacks Forka Blacks Fork from the confluence with the Smiths Fork 

upstream to Millburne 

 WYGR140401070205_01 Willow Creeka Entire Willow Creek watershed upstream of the 

confluence with the Smiths Fork 
TABLE 3.4.1-1 (Cont.) Hydrologic Basin Subbasin Hydrologic Unit Code Stream Location 

Wyoming (Cont.) WYGR140401070208_00 Smiths Forka Smiths Fork from the confluence with Cottonwood Creek upstream to the confluence with East and West Forks Smiths Fork 

WYGR140401070208_01 Smiths Forka Smiths Fork from the confluence with the Blacks Fork upstream to the confluence with Cottonwood Creek 

WYGR140401070403_01 Blacks Fork Blacks Fork from the confluence with the Hams Fork upstream to the confluence with the Smiths Fork 

WYGR140401070701_01 Hams Forka Hams Fork from below the Kemmer-Diamondville WWTF to a point 7.6 mi downstream 

Special Tar Sands Areas (only those with impaired stream segments are listed) Utah (Uinta Basin) Argyle Canyon Duchesne Basin UT14060003-005_00 Antelope Creek and tributaries Antelope Creek and tributaries from Duchesne River confluence to headwaters 

Strawberry Basin UT14060004-002_00 Indian Canyon Creek and 

tributaries 

Indian Canyon Creek and tributaries from Strawberry River confluence to headwaters 

UT14060004-005_00 Avintaquin Creek and 

tributaries 

Avintaquin Creek and tributaries from Strawberry River confluence to headwaters 

Hill Creek Willow Basin UT14060006-001_00 Willow Creek and 

tributaries 

Willow Creek and tributaries from Green River confluence to Meadow Creek confluence (excluding Hill Creek) 

Pariette Lower Green – 

Desolation Canyon Basin 

UT14060005-002_00 Pariette Draw Creek and 

tributaries 

Pariette Draw Creek and tributaries from Green River confluence to headwaters 

P.R. Spring Willow Basin UT14060006-001_00 Willow Creek and 

tributaries 

Willow Creek and tributaries from Green River confluence to Meadow Creek confluence (excluding Hill Creek) 
TABLE 3.4.1-1 (Cont.) Hydrologic Basin Subbasin Hydrologic Unit Code Stream Location 

Utah (Uinta Basin) (Cont.) Sunnyside Lower Green – Desolation Canyon Basin UT14060005-003_00 Ninemile Creek and tributaries Ninemile Creek and tributaries from Green River confluence to headwaters 

Utah (Colorado River West Basin) San Rafael San Rafael Basin UT14060009-013_00 San Rafael River San Rafael River from Buckhorn Crossing to confluence of Huntington and Cottonwood Creeks 

San Rafael San Rafael Basin UT14060009-014_00 San Rafael River San Rafael River from confluence with Green River to Buckhorn Crossing 

a Stream segment is upstream of study area. Sources: CDPHE (2012a); UDEQ (2010a); WDEQ (2012a). 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-71 

growth and changes in the agricultural landscape, excluding potential water needs for oil shale or 

tar sands development. 

 Tables 3.4.1-2 to 3.4.1-4 display the water demand (or diversion) and the water 

consumption (or depletion) in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming in the Upper Colorado River 

Basin. These tables do not include instream uses or water needs of ESA-listed fishes. The data 

for water demand from water bodies or groundwater wells are from state agencies (CWCB 2004; 

SWWRC 2001a,b; UDNR 1999, 2000a,b, 2001; BOR 2004). 

 Water diversion is the amount of water withdrawn from a water body (stream or 

reservoir) or a well (groundwater). The amount of water diverted in the Upper Colorado River 

Basin is commonly much larger than the amount of water actually consumed, because a portion 

of the diverted water is lost during delivery through evaporation to the air and leakage to the 

subsurface, and some also returns to the water body as return flow. Consumptive use is defined 

as the portion of the diverted water that does not return to the stream system. In general, 

consumptive use is assumed in the calculations for apportioning water in the Upper Colorado 

River Basin Compact. 

 The M&I sector indicates residential, commercial, institutional, and industrial uses in 

Colorado. M&I water demand is closely related to the size of the human population. In urban 

areas, diverted M&I water is used. Wastewater is created and is treated before being discharged 

back to a water body. The water actually consumed is less than the water delivered. In Colorado, 

the ratio (consumptive use rate) for M&I is about 35% (CWCB 2004). 

 Industries in the SSI sector, such as power plants or mining companies, could consume a 

large amount of water. The SSI industries generally have their own water supplies. In some 

instances, SSIs may use M&I water in addition to their own primary water supply. In the oil 

shale basins of Colorado and Wyoming, power generating plants and soda mining are important 

SSI industries that contribute relatively high consumptive use rates. In power generating plants, a 

large amount of water is used for cooling. The amount used depends on the cooling system of the 

power generating plants and may vary considerably. The consumptive use rate for SSI in Moffat 

County in northwestern Colorado (primarily from two power generating plants and the soda 

mining industry) is about 76%. The rate is derived by comparing the amount of water diverted 

with actual water consumption data in 2000 provided by the state (CWCB 2004) and 

BOR (2004). 

 In the agricultural sector, reported consumptive use (to support the calculations 

apportioning water in the Upper Colorado River Compact) is calculated differently in Colorado 

and Utah than in Wyoming. Colorado and Utah report consumptive use as the water that does not 

return to surface water bodies. However, Wyoming reports irrigation depletion separately and 

does not consider return water, and thus may overestimate actual consumptive use due to 

irrigation. Irrigation depletion and consumptive use are calculated by models with input of 

acreages of agricultural land, types of crop, and weather data. 

 Generally, water demand in the Upper Colorado River Basin cannot be totally met 

because the availability of water is limited by physical streamflow conditions, water rights 
TABLE 3.4.1-2 Colorado Water Demand and Consumptive Use in 2000 and 2030 Location Demand (ac-ft/yr) Consumptive Use 

2030a 

2000 Low High 2000 Low 

Colorado Basin M&I and SSIb 73,975 100,975 145,193 25,891 35,34

Agricultureb,c 1,764,000 1,644,000 1,706,000 582,120 542,520 

Exportd 759,800 759,800 759,800 759,800 759,800 

Dolores/San Juan/San Miguel M&I and SSIb 23,629 33,369 46,030 5,900 11,679 

Agricultureb,c 953,000 948,000 962,000 368,200 312,840 

Exportd –176200 –176200 –176200 –176,200 –176,200 

Gunnison Basin 

M&I and SSIb 20,688 29,044 38,849 7,241 10,165 

Agricultureb,c 1,705,000 1,640,000 1,689,000 562,650 541,200 

Exportd 0 0 0 0 0 

Yampa/White/Green 

M&I and SSIb 29,408 45,262 56,880 17,800 28,830 

Agricultureb,c 642,000 627,000 852,000 194,000 206,910 

Exportd 1,800 1,800 1,800 1,800 1,800 

Total reservoir evaporatione 389,575 389,575 389,575 389,575 389,57

Grand total 6,186,675 6,042,625 6,470,927 2,738,777 2,664,460 

Legally availablef 3,079,125 3,079,12

Percentage of legally available allocated to sectors 88.9 86.

Water surplus 340,348 414,66Footnotes on next page. 
TABLE 3.4.1-2 (Cont.) a Assumes irrigated acreage change in 2030 ranges from 2,600 acres (due to urbanization of irrigated lands) to +39,000 acr

firm supply of water and funding sources provided). b Includes delivery system loss, irrigation water requirement, incident losses, and stock pond evaporation. c The consumptive use factors for M&I and agricultural are 0.35 and 0.33, respectively. The factors were derived from year 

BOR (2004) and CWCB (2004). d Diversion was measured: a negative value means import, a positive value means export. Include Gunnison and the Dolores 

(BOR 2004). Assumes export does not change in 2030. e Evaporation from main stem reservoirs of the Upper Colorado River Basin and the reservoirs in northwestern Colorado (u

10 years average). f Assumes 6,000,000 ac-ft/yr available for Upper Colorado River Upper Basin based on long-term historical data from 1906 

Sources: CWCB (2004); BOR (1988, 2004). 
TABLE 3.4.1-3 Utah Water Demand and Consumptive Use in 2000, 2020, and 2050 Demand (ac-ft/yr) Consumptive Use (ac-ft/

Location 1996/2000a 2020 2050 1996/2000a 2020 

Southeastern Colorado River Basin M&I and SSIb,c 8,740 10,000 12,000 5,990 6,800 

Agriculturald 73,000 73,000 72,000 43,255 42,295 

Uinta Basin 2000 2020 2050 1995/2000 2,020 

M&I and SSIa 15,830 20,360 30,850 8,450 10,870 

Agriculturald,e 745,000 744000 741,000 387,400 386,880 

Export 150,400 150,400 150,400 150,400 150,400 

Western Colorado River Basin 1996/2000a 2020 2050 1996/2000a 2,020 

M&I and SSIb 55,168 70,300 79,300 43,400 56,200 

Agriculturald,f 284,000 283,000 281,000 156,200 181,120 

Export/Importc 4,640 79,640 160,280 4,640 79,640 

Groundwater sourceg –17,871 –17,871 –17,871 –17,871 –17,871 

Evaporationh 53,250 53,250 

Main stem reservoir evaporationi 137,402 137,402 

Total water use 1,318,907 1,412,829 1,508,959 972,516 1,086,986 1

Legally available 1,368,500 1,368,500 1

Projected use as percentage of legally available 71.1% 79.4% 

Water surplus 395,984 281,514 a In the southeastern and western Colorado River Basin, M&I and SSI are from 1996 data and agricultural water is 

2000 data; in Uinta Basin, agricultural water is from 1995 data, while M&I and SSI are from 2000 data. Source: UDNR (2000a). 

b Sources: UDNR (1999; 2000a,b). 

Footnotes continued on following page.
TABLE 3.4.1-3 (Cont.) c Consumptive use in 2020 and 2050 was estimated by multiplying the demand by a factor of 0.68. The factor was d

from the 1996 data. d Agricultural water use information is from UDNR (2001). Southeastern Colorado River Basin includes 24,825 ac-

Flaming Gorge Water Right; exports of 50,000 ac-ft from water right on the Fremont River in Wayne County and 25,000 ac-ft near Green River in Emery and Grand Counties, 5,400 ac-ft from Price River drainage to the Sevier RBasin; 70,000 ac-ft of water from Lake Powell to Washington County, and 6,000 ac-ft from Lake Powell to Kane C

e The consumptive use was estimated by multiplying the demand by a factor of 0.52. The factor was derived from d

provided in UDNR (1999). f The consumptive uses were estimated by multiplying the demand by factors of 0.55, 0.64, and 0.64 for 2000, 2020

2050. The factors were derived from data provided in UDNR (2000b). g Yield of the West Colorado River Basin is 630,000 ac-ft/yr; the Navajo Sandstone Aquifer may store several millio

of groundwater. h Based on average of 10 years evaporation for Utah in the Upper Colorado River Basin. i 23% of the average of 10 years main stem evaporation. The main stem evaporation includes major reservoirs share

several states. 

j Assumes 6,000,000 ac-ft/yr available for Upper Colorado River Upper Basin; Utah’s share is 23% of 5,950,000 ac

Sources: UDNR (1999, 2000a,b, 2001). 
TABLE 3.4.1-4 Wyoming Water Demand and Consumptive Use in 2000 and 2030 Demand (ac-ft/yr) Consump

(ac-f

Location 2030a 2000 Low Moderate High 20

Green River Basin Surface water Municipal 6,542 6,628 8,059 10,068 SSI (power generation + soda ash + others) 66,460 77,960 106,400 166,300 Municipal and industrial 45

Agriculturalc 401,000 408,000 423,000 438,000 326

Exportd 17,200 22,700 22,700 22,700 17

Evaporation from state water bodies 32,300 32,300 32,300 32,300 32Main-stem reservoir evaporatione 83,636 83,636 83,636 83,636 83

Surface water subtotal 607,138 631,224 676,095 753,004 505

Legally availablef 833,000 833,000 833,000 833,000 833

Projected use in percentage of legally available 72.89 75.78 81.16 90.40 6Water surplus 225,862 201,776 156,905 79,996 327

Groundwater use 

Municipal 811 927 1,065 1,140 

Domestic 1,940

3,880 2,100 3,600 5,080 

SSI (oil and gas, coalbed methane, mining)g 0 0 0 0 

Groundwater subtotal 2,751

4,691 3,027 4,665 6,220 

a Low-growth scenario depends on cattle price (or foliage price), population growth, and industrial growth. 

Sources: BOR (2004); SWWRC (2001b). 

b Source: BOR (2004). 

Footnotes continued on following page. 
TABLE 3.4.1-4 (Cont.) c Depletion is used for agricultural consumptive use, resulting in a higher number than the BOR’s estimate. Source: SWWRC (2001a). d A diversion from the upper Little Snake River Basin to the City of Cheyenne. Source: SWWRC (2001b). e Assumes 14% of 597,400 ac-ft (yearly average of the last 10 years of four major reservoirs). f Assumes 6,000,000 ac-ft/yr available for Upper Colorado River Upper Basin. g The groundwater pumped by these industries is returned to the subsurface; no consumptive use. Sources: SWWRC (2001a,b); BOR (2004). 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-78 

(physically and legally available water, respectively), and lack of storage facilities. In addition, 

infrastructure for storage (reservoirs) and delivery systems is required to send physically and 

legally available water to end users. In many agricultural areas, the lack of financial resources 

often limits the construction of infrastructure, thereby reducing potential agricultural water use. 

This results in a disparity between high water demand and relatively lower consumptive water 

use. The infrastructure also dictates water supply availability. 

 Both intra- and interbasin water transfers are common in Colorado and Utah. Water 

from the upper reaches of the Colorado River is transferred to the South Platte and Arkansas 

hydrologic basins (or Front Range) to support metropolitan and agricultural water needs. 

Similarly, water from the Uinta Basin is transferred to central Utah. Because the water is 

exported outside the Upper Colorado River Basin, the total amount exported is considered 

to be a consumptive use. 

 Evaporation of water from reservoirs and other water bodies contributes a large portion 

of consumptive water use in the Upper Colorado River Basin. The evaporation is from four 

major reservoirs (Flaming Gorge, Blue Mesa, Morrow Point, and Lake Powell) along the main 

stem of the river, and from smaller reservoirs, stock ponds, and streams within each state. 

 Although groundwater is commonly used in the four basin areas, most of the groundwater 

is drawn from alluvium adjacent to the major streams (Repplier et al. 1981). In Colorado, water 

from the shallow alluvial aquifer is considered part of the surface water (tributary water). For 

deeper aquifers (nontributary water), withdrawal of groundwater is considered to be consumptive 

use if it is not returned to the subsurface (BOR 2004). Environmental and recreation water use to 

maintain instream flows are not considered consumptive water use. 

As shown in Table 3.4.1-2, the demand for water in Colorado in the Upper Colorado 

River Basin was more than 6,000,000 ac-ft in the year 2000. The projected demands for the year 

2030 also exceed 6,000,000 ac-ft. The projected demands are based on projected population 

decrease or growth in the region as well as the transfer of part of the agricultural water to the 

M&I sector, with an assumption that water conservation practices remain at existing levels. The 

state used two scenarios to project future use to 2030. The low water use projection is based on 

an assumed 5% reduction of water use per capita, 5% reduction of population, and 10% water 

conservation in those counties with identified self-supplied water. The high water use projection, 

instead, assumes a 5% increase of water use per capita, 5% increase in population, and 10% 

increase of water use in those counties with identified self-supplied water use. Both the 2000 and 

projected future water demands well exceed the legally allocated water of 3,079,125 ac-ft 

specified in the Upper Colorado River Compact of 1948. On the other hand, the existing and 

projected consumptive uses of water in the 2000 and 2030 range from 2,664,000 to 

2,810,000 ac-ft, or about 87 to 91% of the legally allocated water. The projected values do not 

include the water demand for oil shale and/or tar sands development. A more recent report 

includes similar estimates for consumption for the years 2008 and 2035, with additional 

estimates for 2050 (low, middle, high estimates) (CWCB 2011). 

In addition, recovery of ESA-listed fishes in the Upper Colorado River Basin depends in 

part upon adequate instream flows in the Colorado River and its tributaries. The Colorado River 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-79 

Endangered Fishes Program and the USFWS have evaluated the flow requirements for these 

fishes. Appendix I lists the instream flow requirements set by the CWCB for streams within the 

oil shale study area in Colorado. 

 In Utah, projected water use data provided by the state’s water plan are for 2020 and 

2050 rather than 2030. Table 3.4.1-3 lists existing and projected water demands and consumptive 

uses, not considering the water use of any oil shale and/or tar sands development. Similar 

demand estimates for the Uinta basin from UDNR (2003) are 24,000 ac-ft/yr in 1995; 

31,000 ac-ft/yr in 2050 without conservation measures; and 26,000 ac-ft/yr in 2050 with 

conservation measures. A comparison of the Table 3.4.1-3 water demands and Utah’s allocated 

water under the Upper Colorado River Basin Compact shows that the projected demands in 2020 

and 2050 are less than the allocated water. The projected consumptive use of water potentially 

reaches about 79% and 86% of the allocated water in the 2020 and 2050, respectively. 

 In Wyoming, water data for consumptive use are provided by the state and BOR 

(Table 3.4.1-4). In the state estimates, the consumptive agricultural water use is defined as the 

total irrigated water (i.e., return flow water was not subtracted from the irrigated water, resulting 

in a higher amount of consumptive use water estimated by the state than by the BOR; see 

Table 3.4.1-4, year 2000 data). Nevertheless, the projected consumptive use water is less than 

90% of the allocated water specified by the Upper Colorado River Basin Compact of 1948. The 

low, moderate, and high water use scenarios in Table 3.4.1-4 are based on the scenarios of cattle 

price, population growth, and industrial growth. 

 In 2005, the BOR’s Quality of Water: Colorado River Basin, Progress Report No. 22

(DOI 2005) also estimated the depletion of the water due to full basin development for the main 

stem of the Upper Colorado River Basin. The projections were made in consultation with 

individual states and the Upper Colorado River Commission. The remaining amount of water 

available and the percentages of state share available for development are shown in 

Table 3.4.1-5. The projected water consumption of each state by the BOR is much larger than 

that projected by the states. 

 Although a certain amount of water is calculated to be available in Wyoming and Utah 

and to a lesser extent in Colorado, this does not imply that the water is readily or physically 

available for development. Oil shale basins and STSAs are situated in much smaller areas, as 

compared with the size of the hydrologic Upper Colorado River Basin by which the water 

availability was calculated. In addition, hydrologic basins enriched with surplus water resources 

are not necessarily coincident with the oil shale basins and STSAs. Storage infrastructure and 

delivery systems have to be built to capture water for use. In addition, water rights and water 

storage rights (for reservoirs) have to be transferred or purchased before the water can be used 

for development, because most of the water and storage rights have been claimed in the Upper 

Colorado River Basin. Finally, water use for the development must meet different state and 

federal regulations, including requirements to protect instream flows for endangered Colorado 

River fishes in the basin. All in all, whether enough water is available for development depends 

on the results of intensive negotiations between various parties, including water right owners, 

state and federal agencies, and municipal water providers, as well as the developers. 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-80 

TABLE 3.4.1-5 Upper Colorado Basin Depletion Projectionsa 

1,000 ac-ft/yr 

Locations 2010 2020 2030 2040 

 

Colorado 

State share 3,079 3,079 3,079 3,079 

Remaining available 204 158 109 81 

Percentage of state share available 7% 5% 4% 3% 

 

Utah 

State share 1,369 1,369 1,369 1,369 

Remaining available 240 194 120 72 

Percentage of state share available 18% 14% 9% 5% 

 

Wyoming 

State share 833 833 833 833 

Remaining available 244 225 189 145 

Percentage of state share available 29% 27% 23% 17% 

a States do not necessarily concur with the projections adopted by the 

BOR for planning purposes. 

Source: DOI (2005). 

3.4.2 Piceance Basin 

3.4.2.1 Groundwater Resources 

 As discussed in Section 3.2.1, the upper bedrock stratigraphy within the Piceance Basin, 

consists of a series of basin-fill sediments from the Tertiary period. Hydrogeologically, the 

Tertiary units are grouped into aquifers and confining units (Czyzewski 2000; Topper et al. 

2003; Weeks et al. 1974; Robson and Saulnier 1981). The Uinta Formation and the upper portion 

of the Parachute Creek Member comprise the Upper Piceance Basin Aquifer. The middle of the 

Parachute Creek Member, however, is considered the Mahogany confining unit. This Mahogany 

Zone is the richest oil shale zone in the basin. The lower Parachute Creek Member is the Lower 

Piceance Basin Aquifer, while the Garden Gulch, Douglas Creek, and Anvil Points Members, 

combined, constitute another confining unit. Local variations in lithology occur at various scales 

and may result in permeable zones in units that are predominantly confining units and 

impermeable zones in units that are predominantly aquifers. The upper portion of the Tertiary 

Wasatch Formation is shaley and is continuous with the confining unit composed of Green River 

members described above. The lower Wasatch is a sandstone aquifer. The underlying Cretaceous 

Mesaverde Group composes the Mesaverde Aquifer, while the deeper Mancos Shale is a 

confining unit. 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-81 

 Permeability within the Upper Piceance Basin Aquifer is attributable to the primary 

porosity of the sandstone and fractured siltstone of the Uinta Formation and the fractured and 

dissolution-enhanced fractures of the Parachute Creek Member of the Green River Formation. 

The upper aquifer’s hydraulic conductivity is approximately 1 ft/day. The aquifer’s thickness is 

generally 250 to 1,000 ft in most of the basin. Well yields are 1 to 900 gpm; a yield of 100 gpm 

is common (Czyzewski 2000). 

 The Mahogany confining unit has an average thickness of 160 ft, but ranges up to 225 ft. 

Its horizontal hydraulic conductivity is reported as <0.01 ft/day. Fractures within the Mahogany 

Zone permit some vertical flow between the upper and lower aquifers (Czyzewski 2000). The 

vertical hydraulic conductivity is generally low but may increase locally due to natural vertical 

fractures. Locally, a different interval may be the primary confining unit separating the upper and 

lower aquifers reported in BLM (2006g). 

 The Lower Piceance Basin Aquifer’s permeability is attributable to the fractured 

marlstone of the lower Parachute Creek Member. The lower aquifer’s hydraulic conductivity is 

also approximately 1 ft/day, and its thickness is 500 to 1,000 ft in most of the basin. Well yields 

in the lower aquifer range from 1 to 1,000 gpm; yields of 200 to 400 gpm are typical 

(Czyzewski 2000). 

 Exploratory drilling in the basin has shown that groundwater in the Upper and Lower 

Piceance Basin Aquifers is typically contained in intervals 0.5 to 20 ft thick composed of 

fractured or vuggy marlstone, lean oil shale, or sandstone. In the basin, 90% of the water wells 

are completed to a depth of 300 ft or less, and the median reported well yield is 11 gpm. 

 The lower Green River Formation’s confining unit separates the Lower Piceance Basin 

Aquifer from the Wasatch and Mesaverde Aquifer. This confining unit is 1,000 to 6,000 ft thick 

in the basin. The Mesaverde Aquifer has a saturated thickness of 500 to 2,000 ft. It is underlain 

by the Mancos Shale, which ranges up to 7,000 ft thick. 

 The Colorado Water Quality Control Commission established an aquifer classification 

system of five categories of groundwater based on chemical concentration standards and TDS. 

These include domestic use quality (meets state human health standards and TDS concentrations 

are below 10,000 mg/L), agricultural use quality (meets state agricultural health standards and 

TDS concentrations are below 10,000 mg/L), surface water protection quality (guards against 

proposed or existing activities impacting groundwater such that water quality standards for 

classified surface water bodies will be exceeded), potentially useable quality (TDS below 

10,000 mg/L and potential future use), and limited use and quality (TDS above 10,000 mg/L) 

(Topper et al. 2003). Additional details on the water classification system, including specific 

chemical limits, are available in CDPHE (2009). 

 Most recharge to the basin’s aquifers takes place as winter precipitation in the 

surrounding areas of higher elevation (Czyzewski 2000; Topper et al. 2003). In summer, high 

evapotranspiration rates allow little to no infiltration (Glover et al. 1998). Recharge is estimated 

as 0 to 2.3 in./yr, depending on ground elevation (Glover et al. 1998). The estimated total 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-82 

recharge to the Piceance Basin Aquifer system north of the Colorado River is about 

30,400 ac-ft/yr (Topper et al. 2003). 

 In the northern province, groundwater discharge from the upper and lower aquifers in 

the Piceance and Yellow Creek drainage basins is generally as upward flow either into alluvial 

valley fill along creeks or as springs in the shallow valleys. In the Roan and Parachute Creek 

drainage basins, discharge generally occurs as springs in deep canyon walls (Czyzewski 2000; 

Topper et al. 2003). In the southern province, similar discharge scenarios are assumed, 

dependent upon local relationships among topography, hydrogeology, and water levels. 

 In Colorado’s Piceance Basin, the principal aquifer is alluvium along major rivers 

(Topper et al. 2003). However, in the counties composing the basin, water use is dominated by 

surface water, which accounts for approximately 97% of the water usage (Topper et al. 2003). 

An exception is in Rio Blanco County, where groundwater is approximately 10% of the water 

use. In this county, which includes most of the Piceance Basin as well as large areas outside the 

basin, the total average annual groundwater withdrawal from bedrock and alluvial aquifers is 

estimated as 15,000 ac-ft, of which 88% is used in mining activities (coal, oil, and gas). Other 

groundwater uses in northwestern Colorado include domestic purposes, livestock watering, 

industry, and irrigation. 

 The alluvial aquifer along the White River in Colorado is mainly used for domestic 

purposes and for watering livestock (Topper et al. 2003). The annual amount of water pumped 

from this alluvium is about 1,000 ac-ft (Hatton 2000). Well yields range from 2 to 600 gpm, with 

an average of 50 gpm (Topper et al. 2003). 

 Sparse data on the White River alluvial aquifer’s water chemistry suggest fair quality, 

with TDS from 200 to 2,500 mg/L and hardness ranging from 160 to 1,400 mg/L (Hatton 2000; 

Topper et al. 2003). Water with TDS levels below 1,000 mg/L is generally suitable for domestic 

supply, while water with TDS values below 3,000 mg/L is generally suitable for agricultural 

purposes (Hranac 2000). The water chemistry is calcium bicarbonate or sodium sulfate. 

 The Upper Piceance Basin Aquifer north of the Colorado River increases in TDS from 

the recharge areas (about 500 mg/L) to the discharge areas (about 1,000 mg/L) (Topper 

et al. 2003). The water chemistry varies from calcium carbonate to sodium carbonate, with 

large concentrations of sulfate. The Lower Piceance Basin Aquifer has TDS levels that increase 

from about 1,000 to about 10,000 mg/L along its flowpaths. The water chemistry is sodium 

bicarbonate. Groundwater with TDS values higher than 10,000 mg/L is considered unusable. 

 Surface water in the basin receives base flow from alluvial aquifers. Groundwater 

discharge from bedrock to alluvium, therefore, indirectly provides a portion of the water used 

by surface water systems (Hatton 2000). 

 Total groundwater storage in the northern province of the Piceance Basin is estimated as 

25 million ac-ft (Czyzewski 2000). The White River alluvium between the towns of Meeker and 

Rangely contains an estimated 103,000 ac-ft of groundwater (Topper et al. 2003). In 1995, the 

total groundwater withdrawal for the five counties that compose the overall Piceance Basin 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-83 

amounted to nearly 46,000 ac-ft, including bedrock and alluvial aquifers. Groundwater is 

possibly being mined (i.e., overdrawn) in the basin, resulting in depletion of the aquifer system 

(Topper et al. 2003). Demand is unlikely to change (Hatton 2000). 

 Aquifers below the Green River Formation aquifers are generally not viable because of 

poor water quality and high costs associated with drilling and pumping (Czyzewski 2000). 

 Essentially the only groundwater users in the northern province of the Piceance Basin 

(apart from the White River alluvium) are ranchers. An exception during the 1970s and early 

1980s was oil shale exploration; the brevity of the development period, however, left the 

groundwater resources essentially untouched (Czyzewski 2000). Current oil and gas 

development, however, may be relying on groundwater resources as allowed by water rights 

laws. Throughout the Piceance Basin, the Tertiary bedrock may be the only practical water 

resource away from rivers, significant creeks, and major alluvial aquifers. 

 Protection of public drinking water sources, including wellhead protection and surface 

water source protection, is administered by the state (CDPHE 2012b). 

3.4.2.2 Surface Water Resources 

 Two major rivers drain the Piceance Basin in the study area: the White River and its 

tributaries on the north and the Colorado River and its tributaries on the south 

(Repplier et al. 1981). The White River and Colorado River are administered by two different 

Water Divisions in Colorado. Each has its own authority to administer and distribute waters, 

promulgate rules and regulations, and collect data on water supply. The Recovery Program for 

Endangered Fish of the Upper Colorado River Basin is designed to protect flow conditions 

needed by native endangered fishes in the Basin. 

 Precipitation varies greatly within the Piceance Basin and is closely related to 

topography. Annual precipitation, in the form of rain and snow, ranges from less than 10 in. in 

the Colorado River valley in western Colorado to 32 in. near the top of mountains surrounding 

the basin (Topper et al. 2003; Andrews 1983). Streamflows fluctuate seasonally, with the highest 

flow occurring in the spring as a result of snowmelt from April to June, and the minimum flow 

occurring in early winter. Because of rugged terrain, summer storms can result in occasional 

flash floods in rivers. Since agricultural lands are well developed in the valley of the Colorado 

River, reservoirs have been constructed for better distribution of irrigation water. Therefore, the 

streamflows of many rivers in the Piceance Basin are regulated. 

 Besides the seasonal fluctuation, the annual average flows of the Colorado River also 

changed with wet and dry years (CWCB 2004). During the early 1920s, the region in the Upper 

Colorado Basin experienced wet years. The river had an annual calculated virgin flow at Lees 

Ferry, Arizona, as high as 24 million ac-ft. From the mid-1950s to the mid-1960s, the average 

virgin annual flow dropped tremendously and was reduced to as low as 7.8 million ac-ft. The 

lowest annual flow of about 5.5 million ac-ft was recorded in 1934. Wet years were recorded 

again in the early 1980s and in 1997–1998, and reached a recorded high flow of about 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-84 

24 million ac-ft in 1984. The wet years were separated by dry years in the early 1990s and early 

2000s. About 8.23 million ac-ft annual flow was recorded in 2002. 

 Computed average annual lake evapotranspiration is roughly 30 to 36 in./yr in the basin 

(Topper et al. 2003). The calculated water balance, determined by subtracting the average annual 

lake evaporation from the average annual precipitation, ranges from a loss of 12 in./yr or more in 

the low, western portion of Rio Blanco County to a gain of 4 in./yr or more in mountainous 

eastern Rio Blanco County. In most of the county and the basin, however, the water balance 

ranges from a loss of 12 in./yr to a loss of 4 in./yr (Topper et al. 2003). 

 Several tributaries of the White River, including Yellow Creek and Piceance Creek, drain 

the study area (Figure 3.4.2-1) between the upstream town of Meeker and the downstream town 

of Rangely. Two reservoirs, the Rio Blanco Lake Reservoir and the Kenny Reservoir (or Taylor 

Draw Reservoir), are present along this segment of the river. 

 The streamflow of the White River fluctuates seasonally. High flows occur between April 

and July. Based on data from 1962–2011, the minimum and maximum average annual flows 

below the town of Meeker were 290 cubic feet per second (cfs) (in 1977) and 1,069 cfs (in 

1985), respectively (USGS 2012), with an average annual flow of 655 cfs. The annual peak 

discharge ranged from 900 cfs (in 2002) to 6,600 cfs (in 1983) (USGS 2012). The river flows 

west into the Green River in Utah. The average annual flow leaving the state at the ColoradoUtah border is 590,100 ac-ft (Topper et al. 2003). During low-flow seasons, groundwater 

discharge contributes to part of the streamflow (Tobin 1987). 

 The White River Basin is sparsely populated. Management of the waters in the White 

River Basin is under the jurisdiction of Colorado Water Division 6. The major water use in the 

White River Basin is irrigation. Groundwater use is minimal. On the main stem of the White 

River, water has been available for appropriation. However, water rights calls occur on Piceance 

Creek where irrigation demands can exceed streamflows (CWCB 2002). White River water 

quality data from 1975–1988 are summarized by Tobin (1993). 

 Several tributaries of the Colorado River drain the Piceance Basin between the towns of 

Rifle and Grand Junction. From the east to the west, they are Parachute Creek, Roan Creek, and 

Plateau Creek (Figure 3.4.2-1). Multiyear studies focused on many of the creeks in the study area 

generated data on flow and water quality parameters (e.g., Tobin et al. 1985; Adams et al. 1986). 

A major reservoir, the Vega Reservoir, is present along Plateau Creek, which drains to the 

Colorado River from the south. 

 Snowmelt runoff dominates the streamflow of the upper Colorado River and is typically 

highest in the spring and lowest in the winter (Spahr et al. 2000). The mean annual streamflow 

(based on 1934 to 2006 data) near Cameo is about 3,818 cfs (USGS 2006b). However, the 

maximum peak streamflow is much higher at 39,300 cfs. During low-flow seasons, groundwater 

discharge contributes part of the streamflow (Tobin 1987). 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-85 

FIGURE 3.4.2-1 Yellow and Piceance Creeks and Their Tributaries in the Piceance Basin 

 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-86 

Management of the waters in the Colorado River Basin is under the jurisdiction of 

Colorado Water Division 5. Irrigation accounts for 97% of the water use in the upper Colorado 

River; 99% of the water used is derived from surface water sources (Topper et al. 2003). 

 Large amounts of dissolved salts and sediment enter the Colorado River between 

Glenwood Springs and Cameo (USGS 1968) because local bedrock and the derived soil have 

relatively high contents of soluble salts. Heavy irrigation in this area also promotes the leaching 

process in soils, thereby releasing salts, sediments, nutrients (e.g., nitrogen and phosphorus), 

pesticides, and herbicides into the river (Spahr et al. 2000). Between 1914 and 1957, the 

Colorado River water near Cameo had flow-weighted-average concentrations of dissolved 

solids of 387 parts per million (ppm) and suspended sediment of 2,300 ppm (USGS 1968). 

Using data collected from 1970 to 1983, Bauch and Spahr (1998) found that the dissolved 

solids concentrations trended downward, or that no trend was indicated. Although their 

concentrations are typically low, pesticides are commonly detected in streams in agricultural 

areas (Topper et al. 2003). In the Piceance Creek subbasin of the White River Basin, Andrews 

(1983) claimed that 36% of the total denudation (removal of both solid particles and dissolved 

material) from the subbasin was as dissolved load. 

3.4.3 Uinta Basin 

3.4.3.1 Groundwater Resources 

 Section 3.2.2 describes the overall geologic framework of the Uinta Basin. Key aquifers 

in the basin include the alluvium, the Uinta-Duchesne Aquifer, the Parachute Creek Member of 

the Green River Formation (including the “Bird’s Nest Aquifer”), and the Douglas Creek 

Aquifer of the Green River Formation. 

 The alluvial aquifers are recharged by infiltration of surface water and by discharge of 

bedrock aquifers. The average thickness of the alluvial fill in the White River and Evacuation 

Creek drainages is 30 ft; in the Bitter Creek drainage and elsewhere, the alluvium is about 100 ft 

thick. Maximum well yields are less than 1,000 gpm. Water type is typically sodium sulfate, and 

TDS concentrations vary from 480 to 27,800 mg/L. Most alluvial wells are along the White 

River, near Bonanza, where the water is used to support gilsonite mining (Holmes and 

Kimball 1987). 

 The Uinta Formation and Duchesne River Formation act as a single hydrologic unit 

(Glover 1996). The combined thickness of the Uinta-Duchesne Aquifer, where both units are 

present, is about 8,000 ft. Well yields are typically 30 to 40 gpm, but range from less than 1 gpm 

to as much as about 300 gpm in fractured zones. Recharge to the aquifer is mainly from 

infiltration of precipitation and surface water in the western extent of the formations in Duchesne 

and Wasatch Counties. Flow is generally to the east across the study area, with discharge to 

perennial streams. TDS levels range from <500 to >3,000 mg/L (Glover et al. 1998). 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-87 

 The Parachute Creek Aquifer is recharged by stream infiltration and leakage from the 

overlying Uinta Formation. It discharges to Bitter Creek and the White River. The aquifer 

thickness ranges from 90 to 205 ft. Water generally moves to the west from recharge areas 

along Evacuation Creek, and from the south and north toward the lower reaches of Bitter Creek. 

The “bird’s nest” zone is named because in outcrops it resembles a wall of sparrows’ nests. 

This zone contains solution cavities up to 2 ft in diameter caused by the natural removal of 

soluble nahcolite. Connection of the cavities has resulted in a highly permeable zone within 

the Parachute Creek Member. Properties of the Parachute Creek Aquifer vary greatly with 

location and the degree of dissolution of the nahcolite. Well yields vary also and are as high as 

5,000 gpm. Water type is generally sodium sulfate to sodium bicarbonate. TDS levels range from 

870 to 5,810 mg/L (Holmes and Kimball 1987). 

 The Douglas Creek Aquifer receives recharge mainly by infiltration of precipitation 

and surface water in its outcrop area, with little leakage from underlying bedrock aquifers. It 

discharges locally to springs in the outcrop area and to alluvium along major drainageways such 

as the Green and White Rivers. In the study area, flow is generally to the north and northwest. 

The unit is roughly 500 ft thick, although in the center of the Uinta Basin it is as thick as 1,000 ft. 

Maximum well yields are less than 500 gpm. Water type is typically sodium sulfate to sodium 

bicarbonate. TDS levels range from 640 to 6,100 mg/L (Holmes and Kimball 1987). 

 Groundwater in Utah is classified according to water quality and importance (State of 

Utah 2006). Class IA groundwater is pristine, with TDS levels less than 500 mg/L and no 

contaminant exceedances. Class IB groundwater is irreplaceable as a public supply source 

because it is a sole source of adequate quality, quantity, and economics. Class IC is ecologically 

important groundwater that discharges to a wildlife habitat. Class II is drinking water quality, 

with TDS between 500 and 3,000 mg/L and no contaminant exceedances. Class III is limited-use 

groundwater, with TDS between 3,000 and 10,000 mg/L and one or more contaminants 

exceeding groundwater quality standards. Class IV groundwater is saline, with TDS above 

10,000 mg/L. 

 Lindskov and Kimball (1984) estimated the recoverable groundwater in storage in three 

main aquifers (alluvium, Parachute Creek, and Douglas Creek) in the broader southeastern Uinta 

Basin (an area two to three times the size of the study area) to be 18 million ac-ft. They also 

estimated the practical limit to groundwater withdrawal in this area as about 20,000 ac-ft/yr. 

 Hood and Fields (1978) provide information on water usage in the northern portion of the 

Uinta Basin. This area includes the northeastern part of the study area. It is assumed that their 

study area and the study area of this PEIS have similar water uses. They note that irrigation is 

the dominant water use in the region, with domestic and industrial uses being relatively small. 

Irrigation water for livestock and crops amounted to 575,000 ac-ft/yr from surface water and 

6,000 ac-ft/yr from groundwater. In 2000, the estimated water use for irrigation in the Uinta 

Basin counties of Daggett, Duchesner, and Uintah was 487,000 ac-ft/yr, with some additional 

usage from the portions of Summit and Wasatch Counties in the basin (USGS 2011). The Hood 

and Fields estimates of 1974 population and water use were 28,700 persons in northern Uinta 

Basin counties and 12,700 ac-ft/yr of domestic use. This domestic water was almost all from 

wells and springs. Wells were also used to supply the industrial needs of 4,900 ac-ft/yr. In 1995, 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-88 

the estimated total municipal and industrial water use in the Uintah Basin was 24,426.6 ac-ft/yr 

(UDNR 2000c). 

 Groundwater quality in the Uinta Basin decreases with increased travel distance from 

recharge locations and with increasing depth. Concentrations of TDS in the basin show a range 

that affects the potential use of the water. In many locations, the water is marginally useful or 

even unsuitable for domestic use or irrigation. 

 Protection of public drinking water sources, including wellhead protection and surface 

water source protection, is administered by the state (UDEQ 2012a). 

3.4.3.2 Surface Water Resources 

 The Uinta Basin is bounded by the Uinta Mountains on the north and the Roan Plateau on 

the south. The basin is dissected by the deeply incised southward-flowing Green River, the 

largest tributary of the Colorado River. The Green River is joined by two major tributaries, the 

Duchesne and White Rivers, near Ouray, Utah (Figure 3.4.3-1). The combined flow of the 

White, Duchesne, and Green Rivers near Ouray averages about 5,900 cfs, based on records from 

1965 to 1979 (Lindskov and Kimball 1982). About 4 million ac-ft of water per year enters the 

basin (via the Duchesne, Green, and White Rivers) and leaves (via the Green River) 

(Lindskov and Kimball 1984). Most of the flow is attributed to water entering the basin by the 

White and Green Rivers. 

 The Uinta Basin can be divided into the northern and southern Uinta Basin by using the 

Strawberry, Duchesne, and White Rivers in Utah and Colorado as a divide (Figure 3.4.3-1). The 

northern area includes two major drainages, the Strawberry and Duchesne, with a combined 

drainage area of 4,250 mi2. The oil shale considered in the study area of this PEIS lies mostly in 

the southern Uinta Basin and in a small area in the southern part of the northern Uinta Basin 

within the Duchesne drainage. 

 Most of the tributaries of the Duchesne drainage begin on the south slope of the Uinta 

Mountains. Major tributaries to the Duchesne River include the Whiterocks River, Uinta River, 

Dry Gulch Creek, Lake Fork River, Rock Creek, North Fork and West Fork Duchesne Rivers, 

Red and Currant Creeks, and the Strawberry River. The Duchesne River flows to the east and 

joins the Green River near Ouray, Utah. 

 The average annual volume of precipitation on the northern Uinta Basin is estimated to 

be 4.87 million ac-ft on the basis of data from 1941 to 1970. The average annual transbasin 

inflow includes 3.03 million ac-ft in the Green River and 521,000 ac-ft in the White River. 

About 4.27 million ac-ft are consumed annually by evapotranspiration (Hood and Fields 1978), 

and 190,000 ac-ft/yr are exported to the southern Uinta Basin and Great Basin. The average 

outflow of the Green River from the northern Uinta Basin is about 3.95 million ac-ft/yr 

(Hood and Fields 1978). 
FIGURE 3.4.3-1 Major Rivers and Their Tributaries in the Uinta Basin
Final OSTS PEIS 3-90 

 The southern Uinta Basin lies south of the Strawberry, Duchesne, and White Rivers in 

Utah and Colorado, draining an area about 4,900 mi2. Most of the major streams on the southern 

Uinta Basin originate from the Roan Plateau and flow northward to the Duchesne and White 

Rivers (Price and Miller 1975). Major perennial and intermittent streams west of the Green River 

include the Pariette Draw, Petes Wash, Indian and Lake Canyons, and the Avintaquin, Antelope, 

Sowers, and Nine Mile Creeks. Streams east of the Green River include the Willow, Bitter, and 

Evacuation Creeks, and the Asphalt, Sand, and Coyote Washes. 

 The average annual volume of precipitation on the southern Uinta Basin is estimated 

to be 3.1 million ac-ft on the basis of data from 1941 to 1970. Another 80,000 ac-ft/yr are 

transported into the basin from the northern Uinta Basin. The estimated annual runoff from the 

southern Uinta Basin is 134,000 ac-ft (Price and Miller 1975; Hood and Fields 1978). The 

subbasins that may be developed to provide sustainable water supply are Evacuation, Willow, 

Nine Mile, Range, and Avintaquin Creek, with a total estimated mean annual runoff of 

55,000 ac-ft/yr (Price and Miller 1975). 

 The climate of most of the Uinta Basin below an elevation about 8,000 ft is arid to 

semiarid. Average annual precipitation ranges from less than 8 in. near the bottom of the basin 

at altitudes below 5,000 ft to 26 in. in the western part of the Roan Plateau. Most of the 

precipitation is from snow in the winter and rainstorms in the late summer (Price and 

Miller 1975; Hood and Fields 1978; Lindskov and Kimball 1982). 

 The streamflow in the basin is extremely variable. Annual runoff varies from year to 

year and over periods of months, weeks, and days (Lindskov and Kimball 1984). Streams 

are typically perennial in the higher altitudes of the mountains and plateaus. They become 

intermittent and ephemeral in areas where annual precipitation is less than 10 in. and 

evapotranspiration is high (Lindskov and Kimball 1984). Evapotranspiration is estimated to be 

94 to 98% of the precipitation in the basin (Price and Miller 1975; Lindskov and Kimball 1982). 

High streamflow occurs during snowmelt from March to June and during rainstorm activities in 

July, August, and September. The flows in the Green, Duchesne, and White Rivers are 

moderated by reservoirs built along the rivers or their tributaries. 

 The Duchesne River and its tributaries have been extensively affected by water 

development projects that supply water to the Wasatch Front. Construction of a system of 

transbasin tunnels, canals, and reservoirs began in 1915. The Duchesne River is currently 

undergoing four separate federal water projects as part of the Central Utah Project (BOR 2006). 

Flow of the Duchesne River has been reduced, and the river channel has been substantially 

changed in the last 50 years. The daily average streamflow measured near Randlett is 634 cfs 

(USGS 2006a). The minimum and maximum daily mean flows were 13 cfs and 7,000 cfs, 

respectively, based on 62 years of record (USGS 2006a). The maximum recorded peak discharge 

was 11,500 cfs. The USFWS (Modde and Keleher 2003) recommended a minimum flow of 

115 cfs in the lower river between March 1 and June 30 and 50 to 115 cfs for the remainder of 

the year for endangered fish needs. 

 Dissolved salt in the rivers is a major concern in the Uinta Basin. The salts originate 

from marine and lacustrine sedimentary rocks and their derived soils that have high salt content. 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-91 

Surface runoff, irrigation return flow, saline groundwater discharges, and evapotranspiration 

are the major causes of the elevated TDS concentrations in the surface water (Price and 

Miller 1975). The concentrations of dissolved salt in streams generally are low near headwater 

areas, but increase dramatically near the lower reaches of the streams. This is magnified during 

low-flow periods. For major rivers such as the Green, White, and Duchesne Rivers, the 

concentrations of dissolved salts are moderated by reservoirs. Recorded concentrations in the 

Green River generally are less than 1,000 mg/L throughout the year. During low flow in the 

White River, the TDS concentration is about 1,000 mg/L. The concentrations in the lower reach 

of the Duchesne River, however, commonly exceed 1,000 mg/L and occasionally exceed 

2,000 mg/L during late irrigation and low-flow periods (Price and Miller 1975; Lindskov and 

Kimball 1984; UDEQ 2006). 

 Agricultural irrigation accounts for the largest use of water in the Uinta Basin, almost all 

of which is obtained from streams (Price and Miller 1975; Hood and Fields 1978). Irrigation 

water is applied mainly to lands that support the livestock and dairy industry. 

3.4.4 Green River Basin and Washakie Basin 

3.4.4.1 Groundwater Resources 

 Section 3.2.3 contains a description of the geological setting of both the Green River and 

Washakie Basins. Hydrogeological data for the basins are available in Mason and Miller (2004). 

Unconsolidated alluvial aquifers along major drainages generally have poor water quality. 

Alluvial thicknesses range up to 50 ft, and some portion of the alluvium may be saturated. Mason 

and Miller (2004) assembled historical well-yield data from across the basins and describe yield 

as less than 1 gpm to about 30 gpm in alluvium. Samples collected and analyzed during their 

study were found to have high concentrations of at least one of the following: TDS, nitrate, 

chloride, fluoride, sulfate, arsenic, boron, manganese, molybdenum, selenium, and uranium. 

Overall, less than 25% of the sampled alluvial groundwater was suitable for domestic use, but 

most was suitable for livestock. 

 In the Bridger-Washakie Formation, data from wells or springs were sparse. Samples 

represented a range of water types, and many were high in one or more water quality parameter 

such as sulfate, TDS, manganese, pH, boron, iron, or uranium. The samples varied in their 

suitability for domestic, livestock, or irrigation uses. The potential for groundwater development 

in these formations is not well known but probably poor. Well yields were not provided. The 

highest spring flow value presented was only 2.25 gpm. 

 In the Green River Formation, the water quality varies among the various formation 

members, but is mainly dependent on well depth and distance from groundwater recharge areas. 

 Data summarized by Mason and Miller (2004) for the Laney Member in the Green River 

Basin suggest well yields from 1 to 75 gpm. Information for the Washakie Basin suggests that 

well yields in the Washakie range up to 200 gpm, with TDS concentrations from 500 to 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-92 

900 mg/L. Mason and Miller (2004) summarized water quality data for wells completed in the 

Laney Member in both basins. Half the samples were sodium-sulfate type; the remaining ones 

were mixed. The water quality of the samples was generally marginal to poor because of 

sulfate and TDS, which ranged from 311 to 53,700 mg/L, with a median of 2,080 mg/L. TDS 

concentrations increased with well depth and were significantly increased for wells more than 

1,000 ft deep. Spring sampling showed a median TDS concentration of 2,200 mg/L. Some water 

well or spring samples were high in fluoride, boron, or manganese. 

 A small number of samples were reviewed or collected by Mason and Miller (2004) from 

the Wilkins Peak Member of the Green River Formation. These were all from recharge locations 

within the Green River Basin. The samples were of mixed water chemistry, with high sulfate and 

TDS concentrations. The water was suitable for livestock watering, and some of the samples 

represented water acceptable for irrigation or domestic use. Mason and Miller (2004) 

summarized prior studies on the Wilkins Peak water quality, in which the water was of very poor 

quality, and suggested that the water quality worsens rapidly with distance traveled. Well yields 

in the Wilkins Peak were reported to be less than 30 gpm. 

 To address the Tipton Shale Member, Mason and Miller (2004) reviewed and collected 

groundwater sample data. Water chemistry was found to be either sodium bicarbonate or mixed. 

The samples had TDS levels that made them marginally suitable for domestic use, but they were 

acceptable for livestock watering. However, a few of the samples were high in boron or fluoride. 

These samples were from wells in the Green River Basin, which were in use for livestock 

watering or other purposes; they were, therefore, not of poor quality. A review of historical 

reports on other water samples in the Green River Basin found groundwater in the Tipton Shale 

to be of good quality in portions of the Green River Basin, but poorer in other parts of the basin. 

Yields from nine wells in the Tipton Shale ranged from 10 to 170 gpm. The potential for 

groundwater development in the Washakie Basin is considered to be low. 

 No data are available for the Luman Tongue of the Green River Formation. The aquifer 

can probably produce enough groundwater for livestock or domestic use, provided the well is 

close to a recharge area (Mason and Miller 2004). 

 A review of wells completed in the Wasatch showed yields from less than 1 to 

1,300 gpm, with most less than 500 gpm (Mason and Miller 2004). Samples from 84 Wasatch 

water wells and springs were completed by Mason and Miller (2004). The water type ranged 

from sodium bicarbonate to sodium sulfate to mixed water types. Concentrations of TDS, sulfate, 

and fluoride were generally high, and boron was high in some locations. Of 84 samples from 

water wells and springs, many were at least marginally acceptable for domestic use; almost all 

were acceptable for livestock, but only half were suitable for irrigation use. Fifty produced water 

samples had TDS concentrations ranging from 1,050 to 130,000 mg/L, with a median of 

13,000 mg/L. Most were sodium chloride type. Deeper samples had higher TDS concentrations, 

with wells more than 2,000 ft deep generally unsuitable for domestic, irrigation, or livestock use. 

 Wyoming classifies its aquifers according to standards designed to protect groundwater 

of a given classification from anthropogenic degradation, so that the water quality is suitable for 

its intended use or potential future use (WDEQ 2005). Three categories have been defined on the 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-93 

basis of ionic concentrations and other water quality parameters, including TDS. The Class I 

aquifers are those for domestic use and have TDS concentrations up to 500 mg/L. The Class II 

aquifers are for agricultural use and have TDS concentrations from 500 to 2,000 mg/L. The 

Class III aquifers are for livestock watering and have TDS concentrations from 2,000 to 

5,000 mg/L. Class IV aquifers have TDS concentrations above 5,000 mg/L and may be used 

by industry. 

 Recharge to the aquifers in Sweetwater County occurs as infiltration in aquifer outcrop 

areas (including snowmelt infiltration at high elevations), losing streams, and even irrigation 

water infiltration (Mason and Miller 2004). Overall areal recharge is less than 0.5 in./yr. The 

bulk of groundwater discharge out of the county takes place as bedrock aquifer flow and alluvial 

underflow, with minor amounts of well withdrawals (Mason and Miller 2004). 

 The Green River and Washakie Basins are sparsely populated. In Sweetwater County, 

Wyoming, which contains most of the basins, the estimated mean daily water use in 2000 was 

170 million gpd (Mason and Miller 2004). The largest water use is irrigation, at an estimated 

mean daily rate of 92 million gpd, of which 90% was surface water. Groundwater, though relied 

on as a resource to a much smaller degree than surface water, is the sole source of water in many 

areas. The second largest water use in Sweetwater County was mining (41 million gpd), for 

which essentially all water was saline groundwater. The predominant mining water use was for 

trona mining and oil and gas production (Mason and Miller 2004). 

 Population centers in the Wyoming basins are located in the Green River Basin, with the 

cities of Rock Springs and Green River composing more than 80% of the Sweetwater County 

population (Mason and Miller 2004). These cities, as well as the town of Granger, rely on 

surface water for municipal supply, with Granger along Blacks Fork, Rock Springs at the 

confluence of Bitter Creek and Killpecker Creek, and Green River along the Green River itself. 

 Groundwater use by irrigation, public supply, industry, and domestic wells is essentially 

negligible (Mason and Miller 2004). Mining operations have constituted the only significant use 

of groundwater in Sweetwater County. 

 Groundwater quality in the basins decreases in quality with increased travel distance from 

recharge locations and with increasing depth (Mason and Miller 2004). TDS concentrations are 

moderately saline to briny in aquifers a few thousand feet deep, but locally even shallow 

groundwater can have moderate salinity. In Sweetwater County, which contains most of the 

Green River and Washakie Basins’ oil shale, shallow groundwater is available in most places 

(Mason and Miller 2004). However, high TDS concentrations in many locations cause the water 

to be marginally useful or even unsuitable for domestic use or irrigation. Water of livestockwatering quality is generally available in the county. 

 In addition to having high TDS concentrations, groundwater from some aquifers in 

Sweetwater County exceeds EPA drinking water standards for sulfate, fluoride, boron, iron, and 

manganese (Mason and Miller 2004). 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-94 

 Water quality in alluvial aquifers in Sweetwater County is generally poor because of high 

TDS concentrations (Mason and Miller 2004). Tertiary bedrock aquifers, although of variable 

quality, have the most abundant groundwater in the Sweetwater County vicinity and are the most 

widely used (Mason and Miller 2004). 

 Protection of public drinking water sources, including wellhead protection and surface 

water source protection, is administered by the State (WDEQ 2012b). 

3.4.4.2 Surface Water Resources 

 The Green River Basin in Wyoming is part of the Colorado River Basin. Major 

tributaries of the Green River in the basin include the New Fork, Hams Fork, Big Sandy, Blacks 

Fork, and Henry’s Fork Rivers; and Bitter Creek (Figure 3.4.4-1). 

 Annual rainfall within the basin varies with altitude, ranging from less than 8 in. on the 

basin floor to more than 50 in. in the surrounding mountain ranges (Hahn and Jessen 2001). 

The Fontenelle and Flaming Gorge Reservoirs are two major reservoirs on the Green River. 

In addition, there are many smaller reservoirs constructed along the major tributaries of the 

Green River. 

 The streamflow pattern in the basin is highlighted by spring snowmelts, with high flow 

from April to July. The streamflow is also moderated by reservoirs built along the rivers. For the 

Green River below the Fontenelle Reservoir in Wyoming, the mean annual flow was 1,780 cfs 

for the 1965 to 1984 period. The minimum and maximum annual flows were 690 cfs and 

2,780 cfs, respectively. Near the town of Green River, Wyoming, the mean, maximum, and 

minimum annual flows of the Green River were 1,800, 3,010, and 689 cfs, respectively 

(Peterson 1988). 

 The water quality of the streams near mountains is generally good but deteriorates as the 

streams flow across the basin. The degradation of the water quality is caused by both natural and 

man-made sources (Strohman 2000). The Green River drainage above Fontenelle Reservoir and 

the Green River itself above Flaming Gorge Reservoir contain less than 500 mg/L TDS. The 

water at the Flaming Gorge Reservoir has a median TDS concentration at or slightly above 

500 mg/L. The water quality of many streams originating in the low areas is rated as fair to poor 

in the capacity to support nongame fish, or the water does not have the potential to support fish 

(Strohman 2000). 

 Agricultural irrigation is the largest use of surface water in the basin. The most common 

use of irrigation is in the growth of grass hay for harvest and pasture. The BOR reported that for 

the 1986 to 1990 period, irrigation depletions in Wyoming’s Green River Basin averaged 

399,000 ac-ft, or about 79% of total depletions. Livestock and domestic and municipal uses 

account for the other uses of the surface water in the basin (SWWRC 2001a). 

 The oil shale area in the Washakie Basin of Wyoming is drained by the tributaries of the 

Little Snake River. Alkali Creek and Vermillion Creek are two perennial rivers draining the 
FIGURE 3.4.4-1 Major Rivers and Their Tributaries in the Green River and Washakie Basins 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-96 

basin. Most of the other creeks in the basin, such as Sand Creek, Shell Creek, and Barrow Spring 

Draw, are ephemeral. 

 Annual precipitation varies with elevation, ranging from less than 10 in. near the bottom 

of the basin to more than 18 in. near the summit of Pine Mountain in the southwestern part of 

the basin. For most streams in the basin, high flow occurs during periods of snowmelt and 

rainstorms, and low flow occurs during the fall and early winter. Extended periods of no flow are 

common for ephemeral streams. Most ephemeral streams are also losing streams (Mason and 

Miller 2004). 

3.4.5 Special Tar Sand Areas 

3.4.5.1 Groundwater Resources 

 The BLM (1984b) compiled groundwater information for each STSA, including 

estimates of well yields, spring flows, and ranges of TDS values (Table 3.4.5-1). In cases where 

sufficient data are available, wide ranges of values are noted for each parameter. Water quality is 

affected by the geochemistry of the unconsolidated and bedrock aquifers. Groundwater quality is 

typically better from shallower sources. 

 Groundwater at or near the 11 STSAs is likely used for a combination of mining, stock 

watering, irrigation, domestic, municipal, and industrial uses. Local withdrawals at each STSA 

are dependent upon mining activities, population density, and agricultural land use. 

3.4.5.2 Surface Water Resources 

 Precipitation varies across the STSAs with elevation. Higher-elevation STSAs, such as 

Argyle Canyon and Sunnyside, receive 30 or more in./yr of precipitation (BLM 1984b). Most of 

the STSAs, however, receive less than 8 in./yr. At San Rafael, annual precipitation is less than 

6 in. 

 Except for San Rafael Swell, Tar Sand Triangle, Circle Cliffs, and White Canyon, most 

of the STSAs are located in the Uinta Basin. The hydrology of the Uinta Basin is described in 

Section 3.4.3.2. Figure 3.4.5-1 shows the streams and intermittent streams draining the STSAs. 

 The STSAs in the northern Uinta Basin that are drained by perennial and intermittent 

streams include Raven Ridge and Asphalt Ridge. The Asphalt Ridge STSA is crossed by the 

Twelve Mile Wash, which flows south and discharges into the Green River. The Raven Ridge 

STSA is crossed by the Powder Springs Wash, which flows westward into the Green River 

(Blackett 1996). Both the Twelve Mile Wash and the Powder Springs Wash are intermittent 

streams. 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-97 

TABLE 3.4.5-1 Groundwater Data within or near STSAs 

STSA Water Source 

Well Yield or Spring 

Flow (gpm) TDS (mg/L) Formation(s) 

 

Argyle Canyon 

and Sunnyside 

Wells and springs <1–350 190–67,800 Alluvium, Green River, 

Uinta, and others 

 

Asphalt Ridge Wells 0.1–503 149–2,420 Duchesne River, and others 

Asphalt Ridge Springs 36–83,250 69–742 From Chinle Formation, 

possibly others 

Circle Cliffs Wells, including 

mine dewatering 

NAa 188–8,510 NA 

 

Hill Creek and 

P.R. Spring 

Springs Up to 50, though 

most are less than 10 

297–6,110 Alluvium, Bird’s Nest 

Aquifer of the Parachute 

Creek Member and 

Douglas Creek Member of 

the Green River Formation 

 

Pariette Wells 3–60 116–4,480 Uinta 

 

Raven Ridge Wells 0.1–200 221–118,000 Uinta, Green River, 

Wasatch, and others 

 

San Rafael Swell Wells 2.8–200 NA Navajo, Moenkopi, and 

others 

 

San Rafael Swell Springs <1–200 NA Navajo, Moenkopi, and 

others 

 

Tar Sand Triangle 

and White Canyon 

Wells Up to 70, most are 

<50 

318–85,500 Navajo, Wingate, and 

Coconino 

 

Tar Sand Triangle 

and White Canyon 

Springs 360–450 179–6,530 

(most are 

<2,400) 

Navajo, Wingate, and 

Coconino 

a NA = data not available. 

Source: BLM (1984b). 

 The STSAs in the southern Uinta Basin that are drained by perennial and intermittent 

streams within a distance of 0.25 mi include the P.R. Spring and Hill Creek STSAs east of the 

Green River, and the Pariette Draw, Sunnyside, and Argyle Canyon STSAs west of the Green 

River (Figure 3.4.5-1). 

 Pariette Draw and its tributaries drain the area near the Pariette STSA. Pariette Draw is a 

perennial stream, discharging to the Green River. 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-98 

FIGURE 3.4.5-1 Green River and Dirty Devil River Basins Drainage Map 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-99 

 The P.R. Spring and Hill Creek STSAs are incised by intermittent and perennial streams, 

forming a dendritic drainage pattern. The P.R. Spring STSA is drained by Bitter Creek, Sand 

Wash, and Willow Creek and their tributaries. The Hill Creek STSA is drained by the Hill Creek 

and Tabyago Canyon and their tributaries (Blackett 1996). The Sunnyside STSA is dissected by 

tributaries of Dry Creek and Cotton Wood Canyon, and the upper reach of Range Creek. Dry 

Creek and Cotton Wood Canyon are two major tributaries of Nine Mile Creek. The upper reach 

of Range Creek is an intermittent stream. Both Nine Mile Creek and Range Creek discharge to 

the Green River (Blackett 1996). 

 The Argyle Canyon STSA is exposed along the valley of Argyle Creek that flows 

eastward to join Minnie Maude Creek and Nine-Mile Creek, forming the main stem of NineMile Creek. 

 The San Rafael Swell STSA is primarily drained by the San Rafael River and its 

tributaries in a desert environment. The river is part of the West Colorado drainage, draining to 

the Green River. The main stem of the San Rafael River is a perennial river, while most of the 

tributaries that cross the STSA are intermittent streams. Based on 68 years of record, the annual 

runoff of the San Rafael River near Green River, Utah, is 374 cfs (USGS Gage 09328500), with 

a minimum and maximum flow of 1.2 cfs and 2,760 cfs, respectively (USGS 2006b). 

 The Tar Sand Triangle STSA is in the lowlands within the lower Dirty Devil River Basin, 

Utah (Figure 3.4.5-1). The Green and Colorado Rivers flow on the east side of the deposit, and 

the Dirty Devil River on the west. The Dirty Devil River is a tributary of the Colorado River and 

is formed by the confluence of Muddy Creek and the Fremont River. From Hanksville 

downstream, the Dirty Devil River has no perennial tributaries (Hood and Danielson 1981). 

Based on 49 years of record, the annual runoff of the Dirty Devil River near Hanksville, Utah 

(USGS Gage 09333500), is 98.6 cfs, with a minimum and maximum flow of 0 cfs and 975 cfs, 

respectively (USGS 2006c). The Dirty Devil River joins the Colorado River at the Lake Powell 

Reservoir. 

 About 96% of the precipitation in the lower Dirty Devil River Basin is consumed by 

evapotranspiration. The long-term average annual inflow and outflow of the Dirty Devil River is 

estimated to be 1.6 million ac-ft (Hood and Danielson 1981). High streamflow is expected in 

spring and occasionally during summer rainstorms. The water quality of the Dirty Devil River 

near the Colorado River is slightly saline. 

 No perennial streams are present in the Circle Cliffs STSA, which is crossed by several 

intermittent streams of Hall Creek and the Escalante River. Both Hall Creek and the Escalante 

River are tributaries of the Colorado River. The main stem of the Escalante River is located 

about 6 mi southwest of the deposit (Glassett and Glassett 1976). 

 The White Canyon STSA is crossed by White Canyon, an intermittent stream discharging 

to the Colorado River. Surface water resources in this STSA are very limited. Lake Powell 

(Reservoir) on the Colorado River is located more than 7 mi west of the area. 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-100 

 The BLM (1984b) compiled information on surface water flow rates, water quality, and 

water uses for rivers and streams near the 11 STSAs. Average flows at various stations along the 

major rivers (Duchesne, White, Green, and Colorado) ranged from hundreds of thousands to 

millions of ac-ft/yr. Smaller rivers (Strawberry, Price, Escalante, and Dirty Devil) had flows in 

the tens of thousands of ac-ft/yr. Creeks typically had flows in the thousands of ac-ft/yr. Most 

TDS concentrations for the surface waters ranged from about 500 to 7,000 mg/L. Bitter Creek, 

near the Hill Creek and P.R. Spring STSAs, was the sole location above this range; its TDS 

concentrations ranged to a high of 15,500 mg/L. 

 At the Argyle Canyon, Sunnyside, and Asphalt Ridge STSAs, surface water is used for 

irrigation, livestock, domestic, municipal, and industrial supplies (BLM 1984b). At the Circle 

Cliffs STSA, surface water is used for irrigation and livestock. Water at the Hill Creek and 

P.R. Spring STSAs is used for irrigation, gilsonite mining, livestock, and oil development. 

Minimal surface water use takes place at the Pariette and Raven Ridge STSAs. At the San Rafael 

STSA, surface water, including reservoir water, is used for irrigation and for the Huntington 

Power Plant. At the Tar Sand Triangle and White Canyon STSAs, water is used for livestock, 

mining, irrigation, and domestic supplies. 

3.5 AIR QUALITY AND CLIMATE 

3.5.1 Climate 

3.5.1.1 Meteorology 

 Because of wide variations in elevation, topographic features, and latitude within the 

study area, meteorological conditions vary considerably among specific locations. Other than a 

highland climate in mountainous areas, the study areas have a semiarid mid-continental climate 

characterized by abundant sunshine, low humidity, low precipitation, and cold, snowy winters. 

Strong, outgoing terrestrial radiation provides cool nights. In midwinter, air temperatures are 

often low, but strong solar radiation and dry air combine to provide generally pleasant 

conditions. 

 The local climate is strongly influenced by microclimatic features such as slope, aspect, 

and elevation. The local surface wind patterns and vertical temperature profiles are almost 

entirely dependent upon topography. Predominantly westerly winds provide additional moisture 

on the western mountain slopes, with drier conditions on the lee side (often referred to as “rain 

shadows”). 

 The predominant prevailing wind direction aloft over the region is from the west and 

southwest (the westerlies) as in most of the United States; however, surface air movement 

patterns are greatly modified by local terrain and ground cover. Wind roses (which graphically 

display the distribution of wind speed and direction classifications from which the winds 

originate) at the 33-ft level for selected meteorological stations around the study area for the 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-101 

5-year period (2006–2010) are shown in Figure 3.5.1-1 (NCDC 2011a). As shown in the figure, 

some locations display westerly winds, but prevailing wind directions are different from site to 

site (most obviously for Grand Junction, Colorado, located just southwest of the Book Cliffs). 

Average wind speeds range from 5 to 7 mph in Colorado and Utah, with the highest speed of 

over 11 mph measured at the Rock Springs, Wyoming, airport, which is situated on a mesa at an 

elevation of over 6,700 ft. Stations located in the valleys typically experience nocturnal drainage 

flow of denser cold air at higher elevations into the valley floor. This condition causes poor 

dispersion and stagnation, which tend to trap air pollutants within the valley. A higher 

occurrence of low wind speeds or calm conditions is typically measured at these sites. The 

Meeker, Moab, and Vernal surface stations show very high occurrences of stagnant conditions 

(i.e., calm periods occur about one-third of the time). 

 Temperatures in the region vary widely with elevation, latitude, season, and time of day. 

Historical annual average temperatures measured at selected meteorological stations in and 

around the study area range from 36F in Big Piney, Wyoming (just east of the Wyoming Range 

FIGURE 3.5.1-1 Wind Roses at the 33-ft Level for Selected Meteorological Stations 

around the Study Area, 20062010 (Source: NCDC 2011a) (Note that the first and second 

values in the lower-right corner of each wind rose denote the average wind speed [m/s] 

and calm wind frequency [%], respectively.) 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-102 

at an elevation of 6,800 ft), to 54F in Hanksville, Utah (in a desert setting), as presented in 

Table 3.5.1-1 (WRCC 2011). Typically, January is the coldest month, ranging from 5F to 

16F, and July is the warmest month, ranging from 80F to 98F. 

 Although limited monitoring occurs mostly in lower elevation towns, the average 

precipitation around the study area ranges from around 6 in. in Hanksville, Utah, to about 17 in. 

in Meeker, Colorado (WRCC 2011). Much higher values are expected in mountainous locations. 

In general, precipitation is greatest in spring and fall, and low in winter months around the study 

area. Snowfall is quite variable by location (ranging on average from about 7 in. in Hanksville, 

Utah, to more than 71 in. in Meeker, Colorado), with the snowiest months being December 

through February. In general, snowfall tends to increase with increasing latitude and elevation, 

while precipitation has a weak relationship with respect to latitude and elevation. 

 Complex terrain typically disrupts the mesocyclones associated with tornado-producing 

thunderstorms; thus, tornadoes are less frequent and destructive in this region. For example, 

tornado frequencies per area in counties within the oil shale study area in Colorado are about 

one-fiftieth of those in the rest of the state. From January 1950 to April 2011, 75 tornadoes were 

reported in the counties within the study area, with 2,561 reported for Colorado, Utah, and 

Wyoming combined (NCDC 2011b). Most tornadoes that occurred in the study area were 

relatively weak, mostly F0 or F1 on the Fujita tornado scale9 (except for three F2s and one F3); 

statewide, most (71%) tornadoes were reported in Colorado, with categories F0, F1, and F2 and 

above, each accounting for about 63, 29, and 7%, respectively, of the combined states’ total. 

3.5.1.2 Global Climate Change 

 Climate is both a driving force and a limiting factor for biological, ecological, and 

hydrological processes; it has great potential to influence resource management. Climate change 

is a phenomenon that could alter natural resource and ecologic conditions on spatial and 

temporal scales that have not yet been experienced by humans. 

 Ongoing scientific research has identified the potential impacts of man-made greenhouse 

gas (GHG) emissions, changes in biological carbon sequestration, and other changes due to land 

management activities on the global climate. Through complex interactions on a regional and 

global scale, these changes cause a net warming of the atmosphere, primarily by decreasing the 

amount of heat energy the earth radiates back into space. Although natural GHG levels have 

varied for millennia, recent industrialization and burning fossil carbon sources have caused 

carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) concentrations to increase dramatically and are likely to 

contribute to overall global climatic changes. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 

(IPCC) has stated, “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the 

mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic [man-made] GHG 

concentrations” (IPCC 2007). The general consensus is that as atmospheric concentrations of 

GHGs continue to rise, average global temperatures and sea levels will rise, precipitation 

 

9 Fujita scale F0, F1, F2, and F3 through F5 tornadoes are classified with wind speeds of 40 to 72 mph, 73 to 

112 mph, 113 to 157 mph, 158 to 206 mph, and up to 261 to 318 mph, respectively. 
TABLE 3.5.1-1 Temperature and Precipitation Summaries at Selected Meteorological Stations in and a

Study Area Temperature (F)a Precipitation (in.) Station State County Average Monthly Minimum Average Monthly Maximum Meanb Total Water Equivalent Snowfall Period o

Grand Junction CO Mesa 15.9 92.9 51.8 8.70 21.6 1/1/1900 – Meeker CO Rio Blanco 6.2 85.8 45.4 16.59 71.1 1/1/1893 – Rifle CO Garfield 9.3 90.2 47.8 11.58 38.5 9/9/1910 – Hanksville UT Wayne 10.9 98.2 53.5 5.69 7.1 3/1/1910 – Price UT Carbon 13.4 90.0 50.0 9.28 18.3 9/1/1968 – Vernal UT Uintah 5.0 89.2 46.2 8.43 18.5 11/1/1894 – Big Piney WY Sublette –5.3 80.0 35.8 7.46 28.6 8/1/1948 – Rawlins WY Carbon 12.6 83.8 44.1 9.03 51.9 3/6/1951 – Rock Springs WY Sweetwater 11.2 83.4 41.8 8.69 43.6 8/1/1948 – a “Average Monthly Minimum” denotes the monthly average of daily minimum values during the period of record, wh

normally occurs in January. “Average Monthly Maximum” denotes the monthly average of daily maximum values duperiod of record, which normally occurs in July. 

b NCDC 1971 to 2000 monthly normals. 

Source: WRCC (2011). 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-104 

patterns will change, and climatic trends will change and influence the earth’s natural resources 

in a variety of ways. 

 There are uncertainties associated with the science of climate change, but this does 

not imply that scientists do not have confidence in many aspects of climate change science. 

According to the EPA, some aspects of the science are “known with virtual certainty because 

they are based on well-known physical laws and documented trends” (EPA 2011a). 

 Secretarial Order 3289 directs the Department of the Interior’s component bureaus, 

including the BLM, to address the impacts of climate change on America’s water, land, and other 

resources (Secretary of the Interior 2009). Management decisions made in the context of climate 

change impacts must be informed by science and require that scientists work with managers who 

are confronting this issue to evaluate impacts through the NEPA process. CEQ is crafting 

guidance on addressing climate change in NEPA documents for federal agencies, which will 

eventually assist the BLM (and other DOI agencies) in addressing climate change. 

3.5.1.2.1 Current GHG Conditions. GHGs are compounds in the atmosphere that 

absorb infrared radiation and re-radiate a portion of that back toward the earth’s surface, thus 

trapping heat and warming the earth’s atmosphere. The most important naturally occurring GHG 

compounds are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), ozone (O3), and 

water vapor. CO2, CH4, and N2O are produced naturally by respiration and other physiological 

processes of plants, animals, and microorganisms; by decomposition of organic matter; by 

volcanic and geothermal activity; by naturally occurring wildfires; and by natural chemical 

reactions in soil and water. Ozone is not released directly by natural sources, but forms during 

complex photochemical reactions in the atmosphere among volatile organic compounds (VOCs) 

and nitrogen oxides in the presence of ultraviolet radiation (sunlight). While water vapor is a 

strong GHG, its concentration in the atmosphere is primarily a result of, not a cause of, changes 

in surface and lower atmospheric temperature conditions. 

 Human activities contribute some water vapor to the atmosphere, but their contribution is 

infinitesimal compared with massive amounts of water that are naturally cycling through the 

atmosphere. Tropospheric O3, which is a secondary pollutant, is short-lived, so O3 does not have 

strong global climate change effects. Thus, water vapor and O3 are not included in the GHG 

emission inventory. 

 Although naturally present in the atmosphere, concentrations of CO2, CH4, and N2O also 

are affected by emissions from industrial processes, transportation technology, urban 

development, agricultural practices, and other human activity. In addition to these GHGs, three 

industrially generated GHGs also contribute to climate change: sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), 

hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), and perfluorocarbons (PFCs). CO2 and CH4 account for the most 

significant anthropogenic GHG emissions. For instance, the BLM-authorized activities 

accounting for the largest quantities of GHG emissions include fossil fuel development and 

production, large wildland fires, and activities using combustion engines (such as generators and 

vehicles). GHG emissions are often discussed in terms of CO2e, which include multiple GHG 

pollutants and account for pollutant differences in contribution to global warming. A GHG’s 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-105 

ability to contribute to global warming is based on its longevity in the atmosphere and its heattrapping capacity. The EPA has assigned each GHG a global warming potential (GWP) that is 

used to calculate aggregate emissions. The CO2e for each GHG is determined by multiplying the 

quantity of emissions by the GWP for that GHG. Total CO2e emissions for all GHGs are then 

determined by adding the CO2e emissions of each GHG. GWPs used for GHG emission 

calculations and reporting are 1 for CO2, 21 for CH4, and 310 for N2O. 

3.5.1.2.2 Global Climate Change Trends and Predictions. The IPCC and the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) estimated the following changes in global 

atmospheric concentrations of the most important GHGs (IPCC 2007; NOAA 2010): 

• Atmospheric concentrations of CO2 have risen from a pre-industrial 

background of 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv) to 386 ppmv in 2009; 

• Atmospheric concentrations of CH4 have risen from a pre-industrial 

background of about 0.70 ppmv to 1.79 ppmv in 2009; and 

• Atmospheric concentrations of N2O have risen from a pre-industrial 

background of 0.270 ppmv to 0.322 ppmv in 2009. 

 The IPCC has concluded that these changes in atmospheric composition are almost 

entirely the result of human activity, not the result of changes in natural processes that produce 

or remove these gases (IPCC 2007). The IPCC estimates that mean global surface temperatures 

increased by 0.74°C from 1906 to 2005 (IPCC 2007). In addition, the rate of warming averaged 

over the past 50 years is nearly twice that for the past 100 years. 

 Global and regional climatic changes have already been documented and will continue 

to occur due to GHG concentrations already present in the atmosphere and ongoing global 

emissions of GHGs. The global mean surface temperature has increased by approximately 1.5°F 

since 1900 (USGCRP 2009). Climate models indicate that average temperature changes are 

likely to be greater in the Northern Hemisphere. Northern latitudes (above 24° N) have exhibited 

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

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

temporal variability and change of climatic conditions, but increasing concentrations of GHGs 

are likely to accelerate the rate of climate change. 

 Of 12 recent years (1995–2006), 11 rank among the 12 warmest years in the instrumental 

record of global surface temperature since 1880 (Figure 3.5.1-2). Global surface temperatures 

from 1906 to 2005 have increased approximately 0.74°C, with a range of 0.56°C to 0.92°C. The 

linear warming trend of global surface temperatures over the 50 years from 1956 to 2005 is 

0.13°C per decade, which is nearly twice that for the 100 years from 1906 to 2005. Increases in 

sea level are consistent with warming. 

 In 2007, the IPCC indicated that by 2100 the global average surface temperature would 

increase by between 1.1°C and 6.4°C above 1980–1999 levels, depending on the assumptions 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-106 

FIGURE 3.5.1-2 Global Mean Land-Ocean Temperature Index, 1880 to 

Present, with Base Period 1951–1980 (Source: GISS 2011) 

made in the predictive model (IPCC 2007). The National Academy of Sciences has confirmed 

these findings but has indicated there are uncertainties regarding how climate change may affect 

different regions. Computer model predictions show that temperature increases will not be 

equally distributed but will likely be accentuated at higher latitudes. Warming during the winter 

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

are likely to be greater than increases in daily maximum temperatures. Increases in temperature 

would increase water vapor retention in the atmosphere and reduce soil moisture, increasing 

generalized drought conditions, while enhancing heavy storms. Although large-scale spatial 

shifts in precipitation distribution may occur, these changes are more uncertain and difficult to 

predict. In a warmer climate, the risk of more intense and longer heat waves will increase. 

Extremes of summer dryness and winter wetness will increase in most places, resulting in a 

greater risk of both droughts and floods; precipitation will concentrate in heavier rain events 

separated by longer dry periods (USGCRP 2009). 

 Climate change predictions are based on multiple modeling scenarios involving different 

sets of GHG emission assumptions. Emission assumptions are primarily based on determinations 

of global population growth, economic growth, fossil fuel development and use, and many other 

factors. The predictions described below are not based on implementation of GHG emission 

reduction programs, such as the Kyoto Protocol or EPA regulation of GHG emissions. For 

example, EPA recently began to regulate GHGs, and these regulations will decrease future 

U.S. GHG emissions through a variety of methods. EPA regulatory actions to date are as 

follows: 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-107 

• Setting GHG emission standards for new light-duty vehicles; 

• Requiring mandatory reporting of annual GHG emissions from many types of 

stationary sources responsible for the bulk of U.S. GHG emissions; 

• Requiring air pollution control agencies to review GHG emissions when 

issuing air quality construction and operating permits for stationary sources 

with large quantities of GHG emissions; and 

• Requiring identification and imposition of GHG emission reduction control 

technologies for large GHG emission sources before constructing new 

facilities or modifying or reconstructing existing facilities. 

 GHG emissions resulting from the above regulations have been included in past climate 

change modeling. Future global modeling and climate change predictions may include 

U.S. GHG emission reductions. Because of the long atmospheric lifetimes of GHGs, decreases in 

atmospheric GHG concentrations resulting from these regulations will occur over decades. 

3.5.1.2.3 Climate Change Impacts on Regional Resources. Projected changes are 

likely to occur over several decades to a century. Therefore, many of the projected changes 

associated with climate change described below may not be measurable within the reasonably 

foreseeable future. However, research on climate change science is ongoing, and it is expected 

that regional research projects will only be finer in scale and will be more confident over time as 

the science advances. To the extent practicable, BLM management will review actions it 

authorizes and the impacts on or from climate change as the state of the science advances and as 

project authorization decisions are made. 

 Since global climate models poorly represent the complexity of the Rocky Mountain 

Region’s topography, researchers are using “downscaling” and other techniques to study 

processes that matter to natural resource managers. Several research projects are under way to 

improve regional understanding—some use statistical “downscaling” methods, which adjust for 

the effects of elevation and the mountains on snowfall and temperature; other studies involve 

compiling, calibrating, and studying historical datasets; others involve enhanced climate 

modeling efforts to include finer spatial resolution that better represent the region’s mountainous 

terrain. 

 This PEIS addresses potential environmental effects of land use allocations pertaining to 

potential oil shale and tar sands activities in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. Therefore, climate 

change trends are summarized for the Great Plains Region (as identified by the U.S. Global 

Change Research Program to include North Dakota, South Dakota, eastern Montana, Wyoming, 

eastern Colorado, Nebraska, Kansas, eastern New Mexico, Oklahoma, and central Texas) and the 

Southwest Region (which includes western Colorado, western New Mexico, western Texas, 

Utah, Arizona, Nevada, and California). Activities associated with oil shale and tar sands 

development, if any, would contribute to overall atmospheric GHG emissions; however, it is not 

possible at this time to predict either the specifics of those GHG emissions, or how they might 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-108 

result in specific climate change related impacts. See Chapter 4, Section 4.6.1.1, Climate 

Change, for more discussion on GHG emissions specific to oil shale and tar sands activities and 

climate change. 

 Much of the information summarized below is derived from the information represented 

by the color shadings on U.S. climate change maps (USGCRP 2009). Climate change predictions 

are within the given range represented on these maps and may not reach the maximum or 

minimum extents of the range. Past climate trends and future predictions for the region, 

including northwestern Colorado, southwestern Wyoming, and northeastern Utah, are as follows 

(IPCC 2007; Ebi et al. 2007; Saunders et al. 2008; EPA 2010; USGCRP 2009): 

• The average temperature increased by 1 to 3F from a 1961 to 1979 baseline 

average to the average temperature measured from 1993 to 2008. By 2059, the 

average temperature is predicted to increase by 3 to 5F above the 1961 to 

1979 baseline. Temperatures are expected to increase more in winter than in 

summer, more at night than during the day, and more in the mountains than at 

lower elevations. 

• The annual number of days above 90F and the frequency of extreme heat 

events will increase. 

• Annual average precipitation increased between 5 and 15% between 1958 and 

2008. Based on modeling using a high emissions scenario, predicted 

precipitation changes indicate increased precipitation in the winter (up to 

+20%) and substantial decreases in the spring (from 0% to –20%) and 

summer (0% to –15%). Fall precipitation is predicted to be within –5% to 

+5%. 

• End-of-summer drought has increased during the last 50 years, and drought is 

expected to be more prevalent in the future. 

• Annual runoff will decrease by 10 to 20% for the period 2041–2060, 

compared to period 1901–1970. 

• Peak streamflow from melting snow is occurring earlier. In 2002, peak 

streamflow occurred up to 5 days earlier than during 1948. From 2080 to 

2099, peak streamflow is predicted to occur 5 to 25 days earlier than during 

the 1951 to 1980 period. 

• Very heavy precipitation occurred up to 16% more often between 1958 and 

2007. 

• Reduced winter snowpack and earlier snowmelt result in less water flowing 

into the Colorado River, less water available for downstream residential and 

agricultural users, and shorter ski seasons (unless additional snowmaking is 

used to prolong the season). 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-109 

• In some areas of the Colorado River basin, declines in spring snowpack and 

streamflows may occur. Projections suggest continued warming, and 

summertime temperatures are greater than the annual average in some parts of 

the region. 

• Water supplies are projected to become increasingly scarce, which may lead 

to conflicts among cities and agricultural users. Changes in stream 

morphology and aquatic habitat may occur because of changes in the 

magnitude, timing, and frequency of streamflows (Dunne and Leopold 1978). 

• Wildfire activity is expected to increase because of rising temperatures, 

reductions in snowpack, and reductions in soil moisture. 

• Earlier snowmelt means that peak stream flows occur earlier in the year, 

weeks before the peak needs of ranchers, farmers, recreationists, and others. 

In late summer, rivers, lakes, and reservoirs have lower flows and less 

capacity, which cause the following effects: 

 Less water availability for irrigating crops and watering animals; 

 Reduced crop and livestock productivity if additional irrigation is not 

available; 

 Increased water temperatures that adversely affect coldwater fish and 

reduce recreational fishing; and 

 Reduced mid- and late-summer stream flows that shorten tourism and 

recreation opportunities, such as whitewater rafting and boating. 

• More frequent, more severe, and longer-lasting droughts are occurring and are 

expected to become more prevalent. 

• Warmer and drier conditions will stress ecosystems and wildlife due to the 

following effects: 

 Shrinkage of coniferous forests and replacement with larger savannas and 

woodlands; 

 Greater pest infestations in pine forests, such as the pine beetle infestation 

in Colorado’s lodgepole pine forests; 

 Contraction of aspen forests due to sudden aspen decline linked to reduced 

snowpack and drought; and 

 Grassland and rangeland expansion into previously forested areas. 

• Land will have increased susceptibility to fire with more frequent, larger, and 

more intense fires. 

• Geographic flora and fauna will shift to the north or to higher elevations. 

Some species may be at greater risk of extinction if they cannot successfully 

migrate or adapt. 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-110 

• Longer growing seasons may increase productivity for some crops, decrease 

productivity for others, and increase agricultural pest populations, including 

weeds and insects. 

• Warmer and drier conditions will adversely affect air quality due to the 

following effects: 

 Increased ambient concentrations of particulate matter because lessvegetated soils are more susceptible to wind erosion; 

 Increased ozone formation; and 

 Reduced visibility due to increased particulate matter and wildfire smoke. 

• Climatic changes may have the following effects on human health: 

 Heavy precipitation increases frequency and severity of flooding and may 

contaminate water supplies; 

 Heat waves stress some individuals, particularly older adults and young 

children; and 

 Increased concentrations of ozone, particulate matter, and smoke stress 

some individuals, particularly those with asthma or other lung disease and 

those who exercise strenuously during poor air quality episodes. 

 It should be noted that uncertainty remains about the precise nature, timing, and severity 

of these effects in a given area. In addition, because the climate change models predict shifts in 

multiple climatic variables (e.g., the seasonal distribution, amount, and intensity of precipitation 

in addition to temperature regime), the precise relationship of these variables may profoundly 

influence the specific outcomes of climate change. It is also possible that some currently 

unknown future factors could result in different outcomes from those currently anticipated. Some 

of the predicted effects—particularly those involving shifts in plant and animal communities—

may occur over a period of centuries due to the adaptability of the community and component 

species to changing conditions. Some community types may occur across an elevational or 

latitudinal range that represents a greater range of climatic conditions than the changes predicted 

by climate models. Existing communities may persist in conditions no longer favorable for their 

establishment. Therefore, elevational or latitudinal shifts in composition and structure may be 

discernible at the upper and lower margins of the community type while intermediate areas show 

less or no change. 

3.5.2 Existing Emissions 

 Table 3.5.2-1 presents annual emission inventory data for criteria pollutants and volatile 

organic compounds (VOCs) for 2008 for counties within and around the study area in Colorado, 

Utah, and Wyoming (CDPHE 2012c; EPA 2012a; UDEQ 2012b). Source categories for 

emissions inventories are different from state to state because of different sources and 

assumptions. 

In Colorado, the point source category accounted for most of the sulfur oxides (SOx) 

emissions (about 91%) due to high levels of coal-fired power generation. The point source 
TABLE 3.5.2-1 Annual Air Pollutant Emissions for Counties within and around the Study Area, 2008 County Contains Emission Rate (tons/yr) State County Oil Shale Tar Sands SOx NOx CO VOC PM10 

Colorado Chaffee No No 24 827 9,521 12,044 1,852 

Delta Yes No 48 1,572 12,132 18,106 2,504 

Dolores No No 9 781 4,905 14,601 1,941 Eagle No No 80 3,769 21,709 14,948 4,256 Garfield Yesb No 279 13,546 35,464 55,727 6,338 

Grand No No 75 1,695 9,565 19,315 2,429 

Gunnison No No 44 1,421 13,470 22,306 2,544 Jackson No No 5 509 4,527 20,996 608 La Plata No No 68 10,454 30,009 24,153 4,416 Lake No No 10 345 3,692 6,386 635 

Mesa Yes No 2,879 9,048 40,688 39,828 8,050 Moffat Yes No 4,031 19,855 25,876 32,503 7,401 

Montezuma No No 71 2,077 16,605 23,923 3,062 

 Montrose No No 1,358 3,665 19,533 21,220 5,823  Pitkin No No 10 882 7,379 11,566 967  Rio Blanco Yesb No 67 4,615 15,446 33,647 5,358  Routt No No 2,582 8,732 10,777 26,362 4,856  San Miguel No No 9 1,093 5,548 13,065 1,504  Subtotal 11,649 84,886 286,846 410,696 64,544 Utah Carbon Yesb Yes 5,672 5,733 11,811 17,006 1,931  Daggett Yes No 3 946 4,284 14,341 327  Duchesne Yesb Yes 20 3,096 12,784 24,689 2,877  Emery Yes Yes 9,484 32,327 16,613 32,545 4,362  Garfield No Yes 33 649 18,822 46,533 1,465  Grand Yes Yes 129 3,749 19,816 37,309 3,277  Kane No No 40 656 17,684 49,719 1,412  Piute No No 10 114 7,340 13,470 326  San Juan No Yes 47 1,521 24,839 66,066 2,962  Sanpete No No 98 853 10,593 19,416 1,361 
TABLE 3.5.2-1 (Cont.) County Contains Emission Rate (tons/yr) State County Oil Shale Tar Sands SOx NOx CO VOC PM10 

Utah (Cont.) Sevier No No 119 1,893 14,529 19,678 1,926 

Summit Yes No 239 5,380 19,646 20,894 2,912 Uintah Yesb Yes 28 1,250 19,302 31,653 3,779 

Utah Yes Yes 406 11,645 80,904 33,132 10,184 

Wasatch Yes Yes 20 1,141 10,251 18,424 1,712 Wayne No Yes 42 183 7,035 24,930 625 Subtotal 16,389 71,135 296,252 469,805 41,437 

Wyoming Carbon Yes No 1,627 7,720 21,428 47,012 16,261 

Fremont Yes No 3,354 4,307 25,997 59,494 37,903 Lincoln Yesb No 23,322 17,921 26,555 38,107 31,671 Sublette Yesb No 751 9,094 102,821 62,013 19,069 

Sweetwater Yesb No 31,369 45,067 52,482 72,947 32,287 

 Uinta Yesb No 285 4,304 11,421 20,799 17,203 

 Subtotal 60,707 88,413 240,704 300,373 154,394 Region Total 88,745 244,434 823,801 1,180,873 260,376 

a PM2.5 emissions for Colorado were not available, so their emissions were estimated based on typical PM2.5/PM10 r

source category. 

b Counties with the most geologically prospective areas: ≥25 gal/ton and ≥25 ft thick for Colorado and Utah, and ≥15 

and ≥15 ft thick for Wyoming. 

Sources: CDPHE (2012c); EPA (2012a); UDEQ (2012b). 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-113 

category also contributed about 32% of the NOx emissions. Oil and gas point and area sources 

combined contributed about 30% of the NOx. For carbon monoxide (CO), the onroad category 

was the primary contributor (about 36%) and biogenic (e.g., naturally occurring emissions from 

vegetation and soils) and forest/agricultural fires were secondary contributors (about 16% each). 

The biogenic category accounted for most of the VOC emissions (about 83%). For PM10

(particulate matter with a mean aerodynamic diameter of 10 m or less), road dust was the 

primary contributor (about 43%) and construction was a secondary contributor (about 20%). For 

PM2.5 (particulate matter with a mean aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 m or less), the point source 

category was the primary contributor (about 28%) followed by construction (about 23%), road 

dust (about 17%), and woodburning (about 13%). 

 In Utah, point sources accounted for most of the SOx emissions (about 95%) due to high 

levels of coal-fired power generation, and they were the primary contributors to NOx emissions 

(about 57%), due primarily to fossil fuel-fired power generation. Onroad sources were primary 

contributors to total CO emissions (about 46%) and secondary contributors to total NOx

emissions (about 30%), total PM10 emissions (about 37%), and total PM2.5 emissions (about 

16%). Biogenic sources were primary contributors to total VOC emissions (about 95%). Area 

sources were primary contributors to total emissions of both PM10 (about 52%) and PM2.5

(about 63%). 

 In Wyoming, the fuel combustion category accounted for most of the SOx emissions 

(about 92%) due to high levels of coal-fired power generation and was a primary contributor of 

NOx emissions (about 56%). Industrial activities accounted for about 17% of the NOx. For CO, 

miscellaneous sources (such as fires, agricultural activities, road dust, non-industrial processes, 

etc.) were primary sources (about 42%), and were followed by biogenic sources (about 19%). 

For VOCs, the biogenic category was the primary contributor (about 59%), while industrial 

activities were secondary contributors (about 30%). Miscellaneous sources were the primary 

contributors to both PM10 (about 82%) and PM2.5 (about 58%). 

3.5.3 Air Quality 

 Under the Clean Air Act (CAA) which was last amended in 1990, the EPA has set 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for pollutants considered harmful to public 

health and the environment (EPA 2012b). NAAQS have been established for six criteria 

pollutants—sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), CO, ozone (O3), PM10 and PM2.5, and 

lead (Pb), as shown in Table 3.5.3-1. The Clean Air Act established two types of NAAQS: 

primary standards to protect public health, including sensitive populations (e.g., asthmatics, 

children, and the elderly), and secondary standards to protect public welfare, including protection 

against degraded visibility and damage to animals, crops, vegetation, and buildings. Any 

individual state can have its own State Ambient Air Quality Standards (SAAQS), but SAAQS 

must be at least as stringent as the NAAQS. If a state has no standard corresponding to one of the 

NAAQS or the SAAQS is not as stringent as the NAAQS, then the NAAQS apply. Colorado has 

more stringent standards than the NAAQS for SO2 (CDPHE 2012d). In Utah, the standards are 

equivalent to the NAAQS for each pollutant (Utah Administrative Code Rule R307-101-1). In 
TABLE 3.5.3-1 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), State Ambient Air Quality Standards (SAPrevention of Significant Deterioration Increments for the Study Area NAAQSb SAAQS PS

Pollutanta

Averaging 

Time Standard Value 

Standard 

Typec Colorado Utahd Wyominge Class 

SO2

g 1 h 75 ppbg P 

h 75 ppb 





 3 h 0.5 ppm S 700 

g/m3

(0.267 ppm) 0.5 ppm 1,300 

g/m3

(0.50 ppm) 25 

 24 h 









260 

g/m3

(0.10 ppm) 5 

 Annual 









60 

g/m3

(0.02 ppm) 2 

NO2 1 h 100 ppb P 

 100 ppb 





 Annual 53 ppb P, S 

 53 ppb 100 

g/m3

(0.05 ppm) 2.5 

CO 1 h 35 ppm P 

 35 ppm 40 mg/m3 (35 ppm) 



 8 h 9 ppm P 

 9 ppm 10 mg/m3 (9 ppm) 



O3

i 8 h 0.075 ppm P, S 

 0.075 ppm 0.08 ppm 



PM10 24 h 150 

g/m3 P, S 

 150 

g/m3 150 

g/m3 8 

 Annual 

i 



 50 

g/m3 4 

PM2.5 24 h 35 

g/m3 P, S 

 35 

g/m3 35 

g/m3 2 

 Annual 15 

g/m3 P, S 

 15 

g/m3 15 

g/m3 1 

Pbj Rolling 3 mo 0.15 

g/m3 P, S 

 0.15 

g/m 0.15 

g/m3 

Footnotes on next page. 
TABLE 3.5.3-1 (Cont.) a CO = carbon monoxide; NO2 = nitrogen dioxide; O3 = ozone; Pb = lead; PM2.5 = particulate matter  2.5 m; PM10 = parti

 10 m; SO2 = sulfur dioxide. b Refer to 40 CFR Part 50 and EPA (2012b) for detailed information on attainment determination and reference method for m

c P = primary standards, which set limits to protect public health, including the health of “sensitive” populations such as asthm

and the elderly; S = secondary standards, which set limits to protect welfare, including protection against decreased visibility

animals, crops, vegetation, and buildings. d In Utah, the standards are equivalent to the NAAQS for each pollutant. e In addition, the State of Wyoming has adopted standards for hydrogen sulfide (H2S), suspended sulfates, fluorides, and odor

stringent standards for SO2. f All NEPA analysis comparisons to the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) increments are intended to evaluate a t

concern and do not represent a regulatory PSD Increment Consumption Analysis. g Final rule signed June 2, 2010. The 1971 annual and 24-hour SO2 standards were revoked in the same rulemaking. However

remain in effect until 1 year after an area is designated for the 2010 standard, except in areas designated nonattainment for thwhere the 1971 standards remain in effect until implementation plans to attain or maintain the 2010 standard are approved. h A dash indicates that no standard exists. 

i Final rule signed March 12, 2008. The 1997 ozone standard (0.08 ppm, annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour concen

over 3 years) and related implementation rules remain in place. In 1997, EPA revoked the 1-hour ozone standard (0.12 ppm

exceeded more than once per year) in all areas, although some areas have continued obligations under that standard (“anti-b

j Final rule signed October 15, 2008. The 1978 lead standard (1.5 μg/m3 as a quarterly average) remains in effect until 1 year 

designated for the 2008 standard, except that in areas designated nonattainment for the 1978, the 1978 standard remains in eimplementation plans to attain or maintain the 2008 standard are approved. 

Sources: 40 CFR Part 50; 40 CFR 52.21; 75 FR 64864; Utah Administrative Code Rule R307-101-1; CDPHE (2012d); EPA (20WDEQ (2012c). 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-116 

addition, the State of Wyoming has adopted standards for hydrogen sulfide (H2S), suspended 

sulfates, fluorides, and odors, as well as more stringent standards for SO2 (WDEQ 2012c). 

 Except as noted below, existing air quality within the study area is relatively good. EPA 

designated areas within the study area are classified as in attainment or as unclassifiable/ 

attainment (40 CFR 81.306, 81.345, 81.351; EPA 2012c). A minute portion of tar sands 

resources are located in the southeastern corner of Utah County, which is currently designated 

as a nonattainment area for PM10 and PM2.5 and a maintenance area for CO. The entire Utah 

County is a nonattainment area for the PM10. However, the PM2.5 nonattainment area is limited 

to the Utah Valley, which is the western half of the county, while the CO maintenance area is 

limited to the City of Provo. On April 30, 2012, the Upper Green River Basin, which includes 

Sublette County and parts of Lincoln and Sweetwater Counties, was designated as a marginal 

nonattainment area for 8-hour ozone based on high wintertime ozone levels (40 CFR 81.351). 

 For most criteria air pollutants, ambient concentrations are relatively low compared with 

applicable ambient air quality standards, as shown in Table 3.5.3-2 for each state in the study 

area. However, recent ozone data acquired at relatively new monitoring sites indicate high ozone 

concentrations in some portions of the study area. 

 Ozone is primarily known as a summertime pollutant. The conditions conducive to high 

ozone concentrations typically include high temperature, low wind speeds, intense solar 

radiation, and an absence of precipitation (NRC 1992). However, high ozone concentrations 

have recently been observed in several western rural areas during winter months, even when 

temperatures are below freezing. Sublette County, Wyoming, is the area that wintertime high 

ozone levels were first identified, where daily maximum 8-hour ozone levels have frequently 

exceeded the NAAQS level of 0.075 ppm in wintertime, mostly during January to March. In 

contrast, ozone exceedances during the summer ozone season (lasting from spring to early fall) 

are rare in this area. 

 Individual days with ozone concentrations above 0.075 ppm do not necessarily indicate a 

violation of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The standard is violated only when quality-assured 

monitoring data indicate that the 3-yr calendar-year average of the annual fourth-highest daily 

maximum 8-hour average ozone concentration exceeds 0.075 ppm at a specific monitoring 

location. Table 3.5.3-2 provides the multiyear O3 fourth-highest 8-hour daily maximum ozone 

values for comparison with the NAAQS. Because of insufficient data (less than three years), no 

Colorado or Utah ozone monitors that are nearest to the study area indicate potential ozone 

violations. However, recent Wyoming ozone concentrations in and near the study area indicate a 

potential violation of the ozone NAAQS. 

 Table 3.5.3-3 provides a summary of rural monitor daily maximum values in areas in or 

near the study area. As shown in the table, maximum daily 8-hour average ozone concentrations 

above 0.075 ppm have been monitored within the study area at one site in Colorado, and at 

multiple sites in Utah and Wyoming. For example, monitored daily maximum 8-hour ozone 

concentrations exceeded 0.075 ppm on 29 days in Boulder within Sublette County, Wyoming, 

between February 2, 2005, and June 30, 2011; 27 of these days occurred in winter months. The 

greatest monitored 8-hour ozone concentration of 0.123 ppm was observed in March 2011, along 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-117 

TABLE 3.5.3-2 Monitored Concentrations Representative of the Study Areaa 

State Pollutant 

Averaging 

Time 

Applicable 

Standardb Concentrationc Noted

 

Colorado SO2 1 h 75 ppb e 

 3 h 0.267 ppm  (See Murphy Ridge, WY) 

 24 h 0.14 ppm  (See Murphy Ridge, WY) 

 Annual 0.03 ppm  (See Murphy Ridge, WY) 

 

NO2 1 h 100 ppb  (See Redwash, UT) 

 Annual 0.053 ppm  (See Redwash, UT) 

 

 CO 1 h 35 ppm 6.8 ppm (19%)f Grand Junction, Pitkin (2008–2010) 

 8 h 9 ppm 2.3 ppm (26%)f Grand Junction, Pitkin (2008–2010) 

 

O3 8 h 0.075 ppm 0.064 ppm (85%)g Rifle (2009–2010) 

 0.066 ppm (88%)g Palisade (2009–2010) 

0.063 ppm (84%)g Colorado NM (2008–2009) 

 

PM10 24 h 150 g/m3 67 g/m3 (45%) Grand Junction, Powell Bldg. 

(2008–2010) 

 

PM2.5 24 h 35 g/m3 34.5 g/m3 (99%) Grand Junction, Powell Bldg. 

(2008–2010) 

 Annual 15 g/m3 9.3 g/m3 (62%) Grand Junction, Powell Bldg. 

(2008–2010) 

 

Utah SO2 1 h 75 ppb  

 3 h 0.5 ppm  (See Murphy Ridge, WY) 

 24 h 0.14 ppm  (See Murphy Ridge, WY) 

 Annual 0.03 ppm  (See Murphy Ridge, WY) 

 

NO2 1 h 100 ppb 34 ppb (34%)g Ouray (2009–2010)i

30 ppb (30%)g Redwash (2009–2010)i

 Annual 0.053 ppm 0.010 ppm (19%)h Ouray (2009–2010)i

0.012 ppm (23%)h Redwash (2009–2010)i

 

 CO 1 h 35 ppm 3.9 ppm (11%)f Provo urban area (2008–2010) 

 8 h 9 ppm 2.6 ppm (29%)f Provo urban area (2008–2010) 

 

O3 8 h 0.075 ppm 0.117 ppm (156%)g Ouray (2009–2010)i,j

0.083 ppm (111%)g Redwash (2009–2010)i

0.064 ppm (85%) Dinosaur NM (2007–2009) 

0.069 ppm (92%) Canyonlands NP (2008–2010) 

 

PM10 24 h 150 g/m3  (See Grand Junction, CO Powell 

Bldg.) Annual 50 g/m3 

 

PM2.5 24 h 35 g/m3  (See Grand Junction, CO Powell 

Bldg. and Rock Springs, WY) Annual 15 g/m3 

 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-118 

TABLE 3.5.3-2 (Cont.) 

State Pollutant 

Averaging 

Time 

Applicable 

Standardb Concentrationc Noted

 

Wyoming SO2 1 h 75 ppb  

 3 h 0.5 ppm 0.006 ppm (1%)f

 Murphy Ridge (2007–2008) 

 24 h 0.10 ppm 0.006 ppm (6%)f

 Murphy Ridge (2007–2008) 

 Annual 0.02 ppm 0.001 ppm (5%)h Murphy Ridge (2007–2008) 

 NO2 1 h 100 ppb 21 ppb (21%)g Murphy Ridge (2007–2008) 

 Annual 0.05 ppm 0.007 ppm (13%)h Murphy Ridge (2007–2008) 

 CO 1 h 35 ppm 1.6 ppm (5%)f

 Murphy Ridge (2007–2008) 

 8 h 9 ppm 1.5 ppm (17%)f

 Murphy Ridge (2007–2008) 

 O3 8 h 0.075 ppm 0.067 ppm (89%)g Murphy Ridge (2007–2008) 

 PM10 24 h 150 g/m3 81 g/m3 (54%)g Murphy Ridge (2007–2008) 

 64 g/m3 (43%) Rock Springs (2008–2010)

 Annual 50 g/m3 25 g/m3 (50%)h Rock Springs (2008–2010) 

 PM2.5 24 h 35 g/m3 14.5 g/m3 (42%) Rock Springs (2008–2010) 

 Annual 15 g/m3 6.2 g/m3 (41%) Rock Springs (2008–2010) 

a Monitored concentrations are the second-highest for 3-h and 24-h SO2, 1-h and 8-h CO, and 24-h PM10 (3-yr 

average); 3-yr average of the annual 4th highest daily maximum for 8-h O3; 3-yr average of the 

98th percentile for 24-h PM2.5 and 1-h NO2; 3-yr average of the 99th percentile for 1-h SO2; and arithmetic 

mean for annual SO2, NO2, and PM2.5. 

b Most restrictive national or state standard. 

c Values in parentheses are monitored concentrations as a percentage of the applicable standard. 

d Representative concentrations are based on recent, reasonably complete data in or near the study area. 

e A dash indicates that no monitoring data are available. 

f

 The value shown represents the greatest annual second-maximum monitored value during the data years 

included for the site. 

g In some cases, less than three calendar years of recent data were available for pollutants for which the 

NAAQS format is a 3-yr average. In these cases, data typically reflect complete calendar years. Data sets 

with complete 2-yr averages for 2009–2010 include Palisade and Rifle, Colorado, and Redwash, Utah. 

Colorado National Monument data represent complete 2-yr averages for 2008–2009. Murphy Ridge, 

Wyoming, site data are based on nearly two full calendar years of data from January 1, 2007 through 

November 12, 2008. 

h The value shown represents the greatest annual average monitored value during the data years included for 

the site. 

i

 The air quality monitors at Redwash and Ouray are located on Bureau of Indian Affairs land and are operated 

by Golder Associates as part of a site-specific compliance action (UDEQ 2010b). 

j In some cases, less than three calendar years of recent data were available for pollutants for which the 

NAAQS format is a 3-yr average. In these cases, data typically reflect complete calendar years. Data sets 

with complete 2-yr averages for 2009–2010 include Palisade and Rifle, Colorado, and Redwash, Utah. Data 

for Ouray, Utah, were limited to calendar year 2010. Colorado National Monument data represent complete 

2-yr averages for 2008–2009. Murphy Ridge, Wyoming, site data are based on nearly two full calendar years 

of data from January 1, 2007, through November 12, 2008. 

Source: EPA (2011b). 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-119 

TABLE 3.5.3-3 Highest Daily Maximum 8-Hour Ozone Concentrations and the Total Number of 

Exceedance Days at Selected Monitoring Sites within and around the Study Area 

State County Station Name 

Highest Daily 

Maximum 8-Hour 

Concentration 

(ppm) 

Total Number of 

Exceedance Days Time Period 

 

Colorado Garfield Rifle 0.076 2 (0)b 6/21/08 – 6/30/11 

 Mesaa Colorado NM 0.071 0 (0) 4/19/07 – 9/30/10 

Palisade 0.077 1 (0) 5/31/08 – 06/30/11 

Rio Blanco Meeker 0.073 0 (0) 1/9/10 – 7/31/11 

Rangely 0.088 3 (3) 8/8/10 – 7/31/11 

 

Utah San Juan Canyonlands NPc 0.078 2 (0) 1/1/05 – 7/31/11 

 Uintah Dinosaur NMc 0.071 0 (0) 4/20/07 – 9/26/10 

 Ouray 0.139 61 (61) 7/31/09 – 6/30/11 

Redwash 0.125 51 (51) 7/30/09 – 6/30/11 

 

Wyoming Fremontb South Pass 0.093 10 (7) 3/15/07 – 6/30/11 

Sublette Big Piney 0.072 0 (0) 4/1/11 – 6/30/11 

Boulder 0.123 29 (27) 2/2/05 – 6/30/11 

Daniel South 0.084 4 (4) 7/1/05 – 6/30/11 

Jonah 0.102 13 (13) 1/1/05 – 4/22/08 

Juel Spring 0.094 4 (4) 1/1/10 – 3/31/11 

Pinedale 0.089 4 (4) 7/29/09 – 6/30/11 

Wyoming Range 0.083 3 (3) 1/1/11 – 6/30/11

Sweetwater Moxa 0.075 0 (0) 5/29/10 – 6/30/11 

 OCI #4 Sited 0.094 2 (2) 1/2/07 – 9/30/09 

Wamsutter 0.087 1 (1) 3/7/06 – 6/30/11 

 Uinta Murphy Ridgee 0.075 0 (0) 1/1/07 – 6/30/11 

a Not in but near the study area. 

b Numbers in parentheses denote ozone exceedance days in winter months, from December to March. Of total 

wintertime exceedances in three states combined, about half of the exceedances have occurred in February, 

along with about a quarter of the exceedances each in January and March. There was only one ozone 

exceedance in December. 

a Not in but near the study area. 

c NP = National Park; NM = National Monument. 

d The site is located about 25 mi west-northwest of Rock Springs, Sweetwater County, Wyoming. 

e The site is located near the Utah–Wyoming border, approximately 9 mi north–northwest of Evanston in 

Uinta, County, Wyoming.

Source: EPA (2011b). 

 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-120 

with the second highest of 0.122 ppm in February 2008 (EPA 2011b). High wintertime ozone 

levels have also been observed at some monitoring sites in neighboring Fremont and Sweetwater 

Counties. However, the Big Piney, Moxa, and Murphy Ridge monitors show no daily maximum 

8-hour averages above the ozone standard. 

 On March 12, 2009, the Governor of Wyoming submitted a recommendation to the EPA 

requesting designation of the Upper Green River Basin in southwest Wyoming as an ozone 

nonattainment area, based on monitoring results from 2006 through 2008.10 The proposed 

nonattainment area includes the entire Sublette County and east-central Lincoln and 

northwestern Sweetwater Counties, within which a small portion of the study area is situated. 

As of October 12, 2011, the EPA has made no determination concerning this request. 

 Air quality modeling indicated that these high-ozone incidents during wintertime result 

from several factors: high solar radiation due to high elevation enhanced by high albedo11 caused 

by snow cover; shallow mixing height below temperature inversion; no or few clouds; stagnant 

or light winds; and abundant ozone precursors (such as NOx and VOC) from existing oil and gas 

development activities (Kotamarthi and Holdridge 2007; Morris et al. 2009). In particular, snow 

cover plays an important role in UV reflection and insulation from the ground, which reduces the 

surface heating that promotes the breakup of temperature inversions. 

 Topographic and meteorological conditions in the study area in Colorado and Utah are 

quite similar to those in Sublette County, Wyoming. Thus, the elevated wintertime ozone 

problem is highly likely once ozone precursor emissions are available. Recently, ozone 

monitoring has begun in Garfield, Mesa, and Rio Blanco Counties, Colorado, and Uintah County 

in Utah. 

 Within rural western Colorado, the greatest monitored daily 8-hour maximum ozone 

concentrations were 0.076 ppm at Rifle, 0.077 ppm at Palisade, and 0.088 ppm in Rangely. Only 

one day at Palisade and two days at Rifle, which occurred in July, showed monitored 

concentrations above 0.075 ppm in three years. However, Rangely recorded concentrations 

exceeded the standard on three days in just under one year. In February 2011, daily maximum 

8-hour ozone levels exceeded the NAAQS level for three days in a row, with the highest of 

0.088 ppm at Rangely (EPA 2011b). 

 Within Utah portions of the study area, ozone monitors at the Ouray and Redwash sites in 

Uintah County and the Canyonlands National Park (NP) site in San Juan County have individual 

days above 0.075 ppm. In fact, wintertime high ozone is more significant in Uintah County, 

Utah, compared to Colorado or Wyoming. The Canyonlands NP site has only 2 daily 

exceedances in more than six years, occurring only in summer months. In contrast, the Ouray 

and Redwash monitors have 61 and 51 exceedance days, respectively, above the standard in 

 

10 Nonattainment status for any area is determined when the 3-year average of the fourth-highest daily maximum 

8-hour average ozone concentrations measured at each monitor within an area over each year is 0.075 ppm. 

11 Albedo is defined as solar reflectivity of the earth’s surface. Typical values range from 0.1 for thick deciduous 

forests to 0.9 for fresh snow. When the ground is highly reflective (e.g., snow cover), solar ultraviolet energy is 

almost doubled. 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-121 

approximately three years (though only two complete calendar years have been monitored), all of 

which occurred in winter months. The greatest monitored maximum daily concentrations were 

0.139 ppm at the Ouray monitor and 0.125 at the Redwash monitor. 

Of total wintertime exceedances in three states combined, about half of the exceedances 

have occurred in February, along with about a quarter of the exceedances each in January and 

March. There was only one ozone exceedance in December. 

 The Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) regulations (40 CFR 52.21), which 

are designed to limit the growth of air pollution in “clean” areas, apply to all major new and 

modified sources within attainment and unclassifiable areas. PSD regulations limit increases in 

ambient concentrations above legally established baseline levels for criteria pollutants as shown 

in Table 3.5.3-1. Incremental increases in PSD Class I areas are strictly limited, while those in 

Class II areas allow for moderate emission growth. Most of the oil shale and tar sands resource 

areas are classified as PSD Class II, except for the tar sands area in or around Arches, 

Canyonlands, and Capitol Reef NPs in Utah, and the oil shale area immediately upwind of the 

Flat Tops Wilderness Area (WA) in Colorado. The PSD Class I and Colorado Class I SO2

increment areas located within 50 mi of the study area are listed in Table 3.5.3-4.12 Predominant 

TABLE 3.5.3-4 PSD Class I and State Category I Areas Located within 50 mi of the Study Area 

Classification Sensitive Receptor Name 

Managing 

Agencya

Area 

(Acres) State 

Distance 

(mi)b

 

PSD Class I 

Areas 

Arches National Park DOI-NPS 65,098 UT 32 

Bridger Wilderness Area USDA-USFS 428,169 WY 30 

 Bryce Canyon National Park DOI-NPS 35,832 UT 47 

 Canyonlands National Park DOI-NPS 337,570 UT 0 

 Capitol Reef National Park DOI-NPS 221,896 UT 0 

 Flat Tops Wilderness Area USDA-USFS 235,230 CO 27 

 Fitzpatrick Wilderness Area USDA-USFS 198,525 WY 48 

 Maroon Bells-Snowmass Wilderness Area USDA-USFS 71,060 CO 45 

 

Colorado 

Class I SO2

Increment 

Areasc

Colorado National Monument DOI-NPS 20,500 CO 34 

Dinosaur National Monument DOI-NPS 210,000 CO/UT 7 

a DOI = U.S. Department of the Interior; NPS = National Park Service; USDA = U.S. Department of 

Agriculture; USFS = U.S. Forest Service. 

b Shortest distance between the potential lease area and the sensitive area. 

c Federal Class II area under the CAA, but it has been designated a State of Colorado Class I SO2 Increment 

Area. 

 

12 Although the area is not a designated PSD Class I area, it has been designated as a Category I area by the State 

of Colorado, with SO2 increments equivalent to those applicable in a federal Class I area. 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-122 

wind direction aloft is from the west and southwest in the region; thus, potential air quality for 

the Class I areas located east and northeast of the study area would be affected. 

 Federal departments and agencies are prohibited from taking actions in nonattainment 

and maintenance areas unless they first demonstrate that the actions would conform to the State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) as it applies to criteria pollutants. Transportation-related projects are 

subject to requirements for transportation conformity. General conformity requirements apply to 

stationary sources. Conformity addresses only those criteria pollutants for which the area is in 

nonattainment or maintenance (e.g., VOCs and NOx for O3). If annual source emissions are 

below specified threshold levels, no conformity determination is required. If the emissions 

exceed the threshold, a conformity determination must be undertaken to demonstrate how the 

action will conform to the SIP. The demonstration process includes public notification and 

response and may require extensive analysis. The EPA proposed new general conformity 

regulations on January 8, 2008 (58 FR 1402). Subsequently, a substantial revision to Subpart B 

and a deletion of most of subpart W were promulgated (75 FR 17254, “40 CFR 51 and 93 

Revisions to the General Conformity Regulations,” April 5, 2010).13

 The CAA gives Federal Land Managers an affirmative responsibility through the New 

Source Review permitting process to protect the “air quality related values” (AQRVs), such as 

visibility and acid deposition, from the adverse impacts of air pollution. The Interagency 

Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) monitoring program was established 

in 1985 to aid in the creation of federal and state implementation plans for the protection of 

visibility in mandatory federal PSD Class I areas (CIRA 2006). Continuous visibility-related data 

representative of PSD Class I areas (e.g., Canyonlands National Park and Flat Tops Wilderness 

Area) have been collected within the oil shale and tar sands study area. Visibility in the region is 

currently the best of the contiguous United States (2004 annual standard visual range of 185 to 

220 km [114137 mi]). 

 When deposited on snow, dust may shorten snow cover duration by as much as a month 

(Painter et al. 2007). Earlier spring snowmelt has broad implications for water resources and 

recreation-based tourism in states where water is scarce (USGCRP 2009). The problem of 

disturbed desert dust causing regional climate change and early snowmelt is discussed in 

numerous recent scientific articles. Neff et al. (2008) documented how the phenomenon of dust 

causing snowmelt is largely coincidental with increased settlement of the American West. The 

deposition of this disturbed desert dust on snow leads to early snowmelt (Painter et al. 2007). In 

the Colorado River Basin, these effects are significant. Painter et al. (2010) estimated that 

disturbed desert soils, traceable to settlement of the American West, landing on mountain 

snowpack in the Upper Colorado River Basin has resulted in a net loss of approximately 5% of 

the annual flow of the Colorado River as measured at Lees Ferry, Arizona. It is likely that most 

 

13 Subpart W required states to develop SIPs for conformity. In August 2005, Congress eliminated this 

requirement. Because the two subparts were essentially identical, the EPA deleted all of Subpart W except for 

§51.851, making 40 CFR 93 Subpart B the single regulation for conformity. (The remaining §51.851 deals 

with requirements for states that choose to submit general conformity SIPs.) The revisions to 40 CFR 93 

and 40 CFR 51, Subpart W became effective on July 6, 2010. The rule changes were promulgated at 

75 FR 17254–17279, April 5, 2010. 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-123 

of this dust on mountain snowpack is coming from nearby lands where soil-disturbing activity 

makes lands susceptible to wind erosion; activities such as energy development, off-road vehicle 

use, and grazing serve to destabilize soils, making them more susceptible to wind erosion 

(Belnap et al. 2009). 

 While climate change could affect dust generation in arid and semi-arid regions, airborne 

dust also interacts with other atmospheric gases, clouds, and radiation to modify climate as well. 

Dust enters the atmosphere from natural sources, such as wind erosion or volcanic action, and 

anthropogenic sources, such as agricultural activities, industrial activities, and traffic on 

unpaved/paved roads. The amount of airborne dust is variable in space and time and has a wide 

spectrum of particle sizes, shapes, and chemical compositions. Because of this variability, 

mineral dust particles can both scatter and absorb incoming and outgoing solar radiation 

(Seinfeld and Pandis 1998). In the visible part of the spectrum, the light-scattering effect 

dominates, and mineral dust exerts an overall cooling effect; in the infrared region, mineral 

dust is an absorber and acts like a greenhouse gas. This leads to a range of possible impacts on 

the earth’s energy budget, commonly expressed in terms of radiative forcing (RF).14 The 

anthropogenic dust RF is estimated to be in the range of –0.3 to +0.1 Wm–2. This range includes 

all the dust’s direct radiative effects reported above, assuming a maximum 20% anthropogenic 

dust fraction (IPCC 2007). 

 The Clean Air Status and Trends Network (CASTNET), operating since 1987, is a 

national long-term environmental monitoring program operated by the EPA and the NPS 

(EPA 2011c). CASTNET collects air pollutants in the form of gases and particles, such as sulfur 

and nitrogen species, metal cation, particulate chloride ion, and ozone. Sulfur and nitrogen 

species along with the meteorological measurements are used to estimate dry deposition fluxes 

using the numerical model. These data provide information for evaluating the effectiveness of 

national and regional air pollution control programs. Currently there are a total of 86 operational 

CASTNET sites located in or near rural areas and sensitive ecosystems collecting data on 

ambient levels of pollutants where urban influences are minimal. Sample stations around the 

study area include Gothic, Gunnison County, Colorado; Canyonlands National Park, San Juan 

County, Utah; and Pinedale, Sublette County, Wyoming. 

 The National Atmospheric Deposition Program (NADP) is a nationwide network 

monitoring precipitation, deposition chemistry, and atmospheric mercury species (NADP 2011). 

The program is a cooperative effort among many groups, including federal, state, tribal, and local 

governmental agencies; educational institutions; private companies; and non-governmental 

agencies. The NADP consists of five networks: 

 

14 The IPCC (2007) defined radiative forcing (RF) as a measure of the influence that a factor has in altering the 

balance of incoming and outgoing energy in the earth-atmosphere system and is an index of the importance of 

the factor as a potential climate change mechanism. Positive forcing tends to warm the surface, while negative 

forcing tends to cool it. In the IPCC report, RF values are for 2005 relative to pre-industrial conditions defined at 

1750 and are expressed in watts per square meter (Wm–2). For reference, using the global average of 379 ppm 

for CO2 in 2005 gives an RF of 1.66 ± 0.17 Wm–2.
Final OSTS PEIS 3-124 

• National Trends Network (NTN): provides a long-term record of the acids, 

nutrients, and base cations in precipitation. This network began operations in 

1978 and currently has 250 sites. 

• Mercury Deposition Network (MDN): provides data on the geographic 

distributions and trends of mercury in precipitation. This network joined 

NADP in 1996 and currently has over 100 sites in the United States and 

Canada. 

• Atmospheric Integrated Research Monitoring Network (AIRMoN): reports 

daily measurements of the acids, nutrients, and base cations in precipitation 

for studying and modeling atmospheric processes. This network joined the 

NADP in 1992 and currently has seven sites. 

• Atmospheric Mercury Network (AMNet): reports atmospheric mercury 

concentrations for determination of mercury dry deposition. This network 

joined the NADP in 2009 and currently has 21 sites. 

• Ammonia Monitoring Network (AMoN): reports atmospheric ammonia 

concentrations to determine ammonia dry deposition. The network was 

approved as an official NADP network in October 2010 and currently has 

about 50 sites. 

 The NADP sampling sites (all NTN sites) within and around the study area include Sand 

Spring (Moffat County), and Sunlight Peak and Four Mile Park (Garfield County) in Colorado; 

Green River (Emery County) and Canyonlands NP (San Juan County) in Utah; and Gypsum 

Creek and Pinedale (Sublette County) in Wyoming. None of the other network sites are located 

within or around the study area except a couple of nearby MDN sites. In addition, the USGS also 

measures individual lake chemistry throughout the study area. 

3.6 EXISTING ACOUSTIC ENVIRONMENT (NOISE) 

 Any pressure variation that the human ear can detect is considered as sound, and noise is 

defined as unwanted sound. Sound is described in terms of amplitude (perceived as loudness) 

and frequency (perceived as pitch). Sound pressure levels are typically measured with a 

logarithmic decibel (dB) scale.15 To account for human sensitivity to frequencies of sound 

(i.e., less sensitive to lower and higher frequencies, and most sensitive to sounds between 1 kHz 

and 5 kHz), A-weighting (denoted by dBA) (Acoustical Society of America 1983, 1985) is 

 

15 The decibel scale is logarithmic. Scales for measuring most familiar quantities such as length, distance, and 

temperature are linear. Logarithmic scales compress the values of the measurements and are useful for 

measuring quantities such as sound levels that can vary over a large range. For example, two linear 

measurements of 10 units and 1,000,000,000 units might correspond to values of 1 and 9, respectively, on a 

logarithmic scale. Logarithmic units also add differently than do linear units. For example, if one object is 6 ft 

long and a second is twice as long, the second object is 12 ft long. For sounds, however, if one sound level is 

50 dB and a second is twice as loud, the second sound level will be 60 dB, not 100 (50 + 50) dB. 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-125 

widely used, which is a good correlation to a human’s subjective reaction to sound. Most noise 

standards, guidelines, and ordinances use the A-weighted scale. 

 To account for variations of sound with time, several sound descriptors were developed. 

L90 is the sound level exceeded 90% of the time, called residual sound level (or background 

level), a fairly steady lower sound level on which discrete single events are superimposed. The 

equivalent-continuous sound level (Leq), if continuous during a specific time period, would 

contain the same total energy as the actual time-varying sound. In addition, human responses to 

noise differ depending on the time of the day; for example, humans may be more annoyed by 

noise during nighttime hours with lower background levels. The day-night average sound level 

(Ldn or DNL) is averaged over a 24-hour period; 10 dB is added to sound levels from 10 p.m. to 

7 a.m. to account for the greater sensitivity of most people to nighttime noise. Generally, a 3-dB 

change over existing noise level is considered a barely discernible difference and a 10-dB 

increase is subjectively perceived as a doubling in loudness and almost always causes an adverse 

community response (NWCC 2002). 

 Background noise is the noise from all sources other than the source of interest. The 

background noise level can vary considerably depending on the location. Background noise 

levels in a noisy urban setting can be as high as 75 dBA during the day. In isolated outdoor 

locations with no wind, vegetation, animals, or running water, background noise may be under 

10 dBA. Typical noise levels in rural settings are about 40 dBA during the day and 30 dBA 

during the night; in wilderness areas, they are on the order of 20 dBA (Harris 1991). According 

to Ldn estimates based on county population density, noise levels in most counties with low 

population density in the study area would be under 35 dBA, except for the populous Utah 

County, which has an Ldn of 46 dBA (Miller 2002). 

 While no information is available defining existing noise levels on BLM-administered 

land in areas of oil shale or tar sands resources, these areas are largely undeveloped, sparsely 

populated, and remote, and would be expected to have background noise levels of about 35 dBA 

or less for their Ldn. In addition to natural background, noise sources could include agricultural 

activities, oil and gas development, low-density traffic on rural roads, recreational activities, and 

aircraft overflights. The identification of specific noise sources, noise levels, and sensitive 

receptors, such as residences, schools, and hospitals, requires site-specific analyses. 

 At the federal level, the Noise Control Act of 1972 and subsequent amendments (Quiet 

Communities Act of 1978, 42 USC 4901-4918) delegate the authority to regulate noise to the 

states and direct government agencies to comply with local noise regulations. EPA guidelines 

recommend an Ldn of 55 dBA as sufficient to protect the public from the effect of broadband 

environmental noise in typically quiet outdoor and residential areas (EPA 1974). For protection 

against hearing loss in the general population from nonimpulsive noise, the EPA recommends an 

Leq of 70 dBA or less over a 40-year period. 

 Oil shale and tar sands development would have to follow applicable federal, state, or 

local guidelines/regulations on noise. Of the three states in the study area, only Colorado has a 

noise statute with quantitative noise limits by zone, as shown in Table 3.6-1. Another rule 

applicable to oil shale and tar sands development is the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-126 

TABLE 3.6-1 Colorado Limits on Maximum Permissible 

Noise Levels 

Maximum Permissible Noise Levels (dBA)a

Zone 7 a.m. to next 7 p.m.b 7 p.m. to next 7 a.m. 

 

Residential 55 50 

Commercial 60 55 

Light industrial 70 65 

Industrial 80 75 

a At a distance of 25 ft or more from the property line. Periodic, 

impulsive, or shrill noises are considered a public nuisance at a 

level of 5 dBA less than those tabulated. Construction projects 

are subject to the maximum permissible noise levels specified 

for industrial zones for the period within which construction is 

to be completed, pursuant to any applicable construction permit 

issued by a proper authority or, if no time limitation is imposed, 

for a reasonable period of time for completion of the project. 

b The tabulated noise levels may be exceeded by 10 dBA for a 

period not to exceed 15 minutes in any 1-hour period. 

Source: Colorado Noise Statute, Title 25, “Health;” Article 12, 

“Noise Abatement;” Section 103, “Maximum permissible noise 

levels.” Available at http://www.michie.com/colorado/lpext.dll?f= 

templates&fn=main-h.htm&cp=. 

Commission (COGCC) amended rule 802 “Noise Abatement” (COGCC 2009), which is the 

same as the Colorado statute. Rio Blanco County in Colorado has a noise standard of 65 dBA, 

with an exemption for limited periods of construction if carried out during daylight hours 

(Rio Blanco County 2002). The states of Utah and Wyoming and their counties in the study area 

do not have quantitative noise guidelines or regulations applicable to oil shale and tar sands 

development. However, some counties have noise ordinances without quantitative noise limits; 

for example, Duchesne County, Utah, limits construction and mining activities to 7 a.m. to 

9:30 p.m. on weekdays, 8 a.m. to 9:30 p.m. on Saturdays and 9 a.m. to 9:30 p.m. on Sundays and 

holidays. 

3.7 ECOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

 This section presents information on ecological resources in potential oil shale and tar 

sands study areas. To the extent possible, descriptions are provided for specific study areas (oil 

shale basins and STSAs) on the basis of known resource distributions. In some cases, resource 

status and distributions are less well known and county-level or regional information is used. 

Descriptions are provided for aquatic resources (Section 3.7.1); plant communities and habitats 

(Section 3.7.2); wildlife (Section 3.7.3); and threatened, endangered, and sensitive species 

(Section 3.7.4). 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-127 

3.7.1 Aquatic Resources 

 Aquatic habitats include perennial and intermittent streams, springs, and flatwater 

(lakes and reservoirs) that support fish or other aquatic organisms through at least a portion of 

the year. The oil shale and tar sands study areas considered within this PEIS fall within the 

Upper Colorado River Basin hydrographic area, as identified in Section 3.4. Aquatic habitats 

of the Upper Colorado River Basin in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming include more than 

300,000 acres of natural lakes and impoundments and more than 10,000 mi of perennial streams; 

of these, approximately 36,000 acres of reservoir habitat (Flaming Gorge Reservoir) and about 

650 mi of perennial stream habitat occur within the geologically prospective portions of the oil 

shale and tar sands study area. 

 The condition of aquatic habitats is related to hydrologic conditions of associated upland 

and riparian areas that contribute to a specific stream or water body, and to stream channel 

characteristics. Aquatic habitat quality typically varies by location and orientation to geographic 

landforms and vegetation. Riparian vegetation moderates water temperatures, adds structure to 

the banks to reduce erosion, provides instream habitat for fish and other aquatic organisms, and 

provides organic material for aquatic macroinvertebrates. Vegetated floodplains dissipate stream 

energy, store water for later release, provide areas of infiltration for groundwater, and provide 

rearing areas for juveniles of some fish species when flooded during some periods of the year. 

The ranges of water temperature, turbidity, and dissolved oxygen within aquatic habitats largely 

define the areas that are suitable for use by different aquatic organisms. On the basis of these 

characteristics, aquatic communities within the potentially affected areas are broadly categorized 

as coldwater or warmwater, although there is actually a continuum of conditions. 

 Coldwater communities in the study areas typically include fish species in the family 

Salmonidae, such as mountain whitefish or trout. Conditions that support such species are 

usually found in ponds, lakes, or reservoirs at higher elevations and in the headwaters of selected 

rivers and streams that provide cool, clear waters with relatively high dissolved oxygen levels. 

Because hypolimnetic releases from dams on some large, deep reservoirs can introduce cold, 

clear waters into some rivers, coldwater assemblages may also become established in sections of 

warmwater rivers located immediately downstream of dams (i.e., tailwaters). In contrast, 

warmwater assemblages typically occur at lower elevations, where waters tend to be warmer and 

more turbid. Warmwater fish communities within the study areas normally include species such 

as minnows (family Cyprinidae), suckers (family Catostomidae), sunfishes (family 

Centrarchidae), and catfishes (family Ictaluridae). 

 Historically, only 12 species of fish were native to the Upper Colorado River Basin 

(Table 3.7.1-1), including five minnow species, four sucker species, two salmonids, and the 

mottled sculpin (Tyus et al. 1982). Four of these native species (humpback chub, bonytail, 

Colorado pikeminnow, and razorback sucker) are now federally listed as endangered, and critical 

habitat for these species has been designated within the Upper Colorado River Basin 

(Section 3.7.4). The roundtail chub, bluehead sucker, and flannelmouth sucker are native fishes 

that reside in large, slow-moving rivers as well as some of the smaller tributary streams within 

the oil shale and tar sands areas considered in this PEIS. Populations of these three species have 

declined in recent years and the roundtail chub is currently a candidate for federal listing by the 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-128 

USFWS. These declines have been attributed, in part, to effects of water development and the 

introduction of non-native fishes (Bezzerides and Bestgen 2002). Because of their-declining 

numbers and limited distribution, the roundtail chub, bluehead sucker, and flannelmouth sucker 

are considered species of special concern within the states of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming, and 

are considered sensitive species by the BLM. These three species are managed within Utah, 

Wyoming, and Colorado under interagency conservation agreements that include specific 

conservation measures (UDNR 2006a,b). In Wyoming, programs to remove non-native species 

have been implemented as a conservation measure for roundtail chub, bluehead chub, and 

flannelmouth sucker. As of 2011, these removal activities have been suspended, and new 

conservation measures including chemical treatment, downstream barriers, passage structures, 

and habitat improvements may be implemented in the future (Emmerich 2011). 

 Another native fish species, the mountain sucker, is listed as a sensitive species by the 

BLM in Colorado but not in Utah or Wyoming. This species is also listed as a species of special 

concern by the state of Colorado. However, it is not listed as a sensitive species by the states of 

Utah and Wyoming, where the populations appear to be stable (Belica and Nibbelink 2006). This 

species occurs in a wide range of aquatic habitats, including large rivers, lower-elevation creeks, 

and montane lakes and streams. Mountain sucker are common within the Green River drainage 

of Wyoming’s Green River and Wakshakie Oil Shale Basins (Belica and Nibbelink 2006). In 

Utah, the mountain sucker is common in the Duchesne River drainage, but less commonly found 

elsewhere in the main-stem Green or Colorado River drainages of Uinta Oil Shale Basin (Belica 

and Nibbelink 2006). The mountain sucker is also found in Yampa, Green, White, and Colorado 

River drainages and is locally abundant in Piceance Creek in Colorado’s Piceance oil shale 

(Belica and Nibbelink 2006). 

 In addition to native fish species, more than 25 non-native fish species are present in the 

basin (Table 3.7.1-1), often as a result of intentional introductions (e.g., for establishment of 

sport fisheries) (Tyus and Saunders 1996). While most of the trout species found within the 

Upper Colorado River Basin are introduced non-natives (e.g., rainbow, brown, and some strains 

of cutthroat trout), mountain whitefish and Colorado River cutthroat trout are native to the basin. 

 Although it was once common within the upper Green River and upper Colorado River 

watersheds, the Colorado River cutthroat trout is now found only in isolated subdrainages in 

Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming (Behnke 1992; Hirsch et al. 2006; Cook et al. 2010). The 

Colorado River cutthroat trout has been designated as a species of special concern by the states 

of Colorado and Wyoming and has been designated as a Tier I species in Utah. Regions 2 and 

4 of the U.S. Forest Service and the BLM in Colorado and Wyoming both classify the Colorado 

River cutthroat trout as a sensitive species. A conservation agreement for cutthroat trout in the 

states of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming has been developed and agreed to by state fish and 

wildlife agencies, the Ute Indian Tribe (Uintah and Ouray Reservation), and by various federal 

agencies, including the BLM Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming State Offices (CRCT Conservation 

Team 2006). That conservation agreement identifies conservation objectives and conservation 

actions for this species (CRCT Conservation Team 2006). 
TABLE 3.7.1-1 Fishes of the Upper Colorado River Basin Family and Common Name Scientific Name Origin Present Distribution in the Upper Colorado River Ba

Cyprinidae (Carps and Minnows) Grass carp Ctenopharyngodon idella Introduced Incidental in the Colorado River and in the lower Green Ri

warm, large rivers with moderate diversity of habitats. Mawarmwater impoundments within the Upper Colorado Riv

Red shiner Cyprinella lutrensis Introduced Widespread, common to abundant. Its principal distributio

sections of larger rivers having warm and usually turbid wor ephemeral riverine habitats and is tolerant of environme

Common carp Cyprinus carpiob Introduced Widespread, common to abundant. It is locally abundant in 

impoundments, slack-water riverine habitats, and seasonalprefers sheltered habitats with an abundance of aquatic veg

lakes, reservoirs, and rivers. 

Utah chub Gila atraria Introduced Incidental to rare in the Colorado River, Green River down

Gorge Dam, the lower Yampa River, Duchesne River drainRiver. It is abundant in Flaming Gorge Reservoir. It preferzones of reservoirs and is generally not found in larger rive

Humpback chub Gila cypha Native Federally listed as endangered (see Section 3.7.4). Populat

located in Black Rocks and Westwater Canyon in the Coloand Gray Canyons of the Green River, and Yampa Canyon The fish is incidental in the Green River in Whirlpool and in the Yampa River in Cross Mountain Canyon; in the lowand in the lower Gunnison River. It is highly adapted to lifenvironments. Adult habitat includes deep pools and shoreoccupy warm, quiet habitats such as backwaters and eddie
TABLE 3.7.1-1 (Cont.) Family and Common Name Scientific Name Origin Present Distribution in the Upper Colorado River Ba

Cyprinidae (Carps and Minnows) (Cont.) Bonytail Gila elegans Native Federally listed as endangered (see Section 3.7.4). It is con

extirpated from the Green and Colorado River systems but extremely low numbers in the main stem. Stocking program

to reintroduce this species. It is considered adapted to main

has been observed in pools and eddies. Roundtail chub Gila robusta Native Widespread in the Green and Colorado River systems, fou

with warmer water. It is generally rare in the middle and exColorado Rivers; rare to common elsewhere. Adult habitat 

pools, eddies, and backwaters with silt-cobble substrate anvelocity areas. Young occupy low-velocity shoreline habit

Sand shiner Notropis stramineus Introduced Common to abundant in the middle and lower sections of t

Rivers and the warmwater reaches of other tributaries. It psized streams and rivers with permanent flow, seasonally wmoderate water velocities, and clear to turbid water. 

Fathead minnow Pimephales promelasb Introduced Widespread, common to abundant in middle and lower sec

having warm and usually turbid water. It inhabits a variety lakes, reservoirs, streams, and rivers. 

Colorado pikeminnow Ptychocheilus lucius Native Federally listed as endangered (see Section 3.7.4). Althoug

distributed in warmwater reaches of the Colorado and Greesections of larger tributaries. Adult habitat includes deep, land eddies, or seasonally flooded lowlands. Young occupy shoreline habitats. 
TABLE 3.7.1-1 (Cont.) Family and Common Name Scientific Name Origin Present Distribution in the Upper Colorado River Ba

Cyprinidae (Carps and Minnows) (Cont.) Speckled daceb Rhinichthys osculub Native Widespread, common to abundant. It occupies permanent 

warmwater streams and rivers and small to large lakes. In are generally found in shallow runs and riffles with rocky occupy low-velocity shoreline or seasonally flooded habita

Catostomidae (Suckers) Redside shiner Richardsonius balteatusb Introduced Rare to common in the Yampa River and upper sections of 

Duchesne Rivers. It prefers cool water and is found in a vastreams, it may occur in slow to swift, clear to turbid water sand, clay, or mud substrates; it is frequently found associa

Creek chub Semotilus atromaculatus Introduced Incidental to rare with a very sporadic distribution in the U

Basin. It prefers small streams with clear, cool water, modgravel substrate, and well-defined riffles and pools with ab

Longnose sucker Catostomus catostomus Introduced Locally common in the upper portions of the Gunnison Riv

tributaries of the upper Colorado River drainage. It is founstreams. 

White sucker Catostomus commersoni Introduced Rare to common in reaches of the Yampa River and in upp

of the Green River; abundant in Flaming Gorge Reservoir; the Gunnison River. It is a habitat generalist found in lakesand rivers. In streams and rivers, it prefers deep riffles, pooover gravel or cobble substrates. 

Bluehead sucker Catostomus discobolus Native Widespread, rare to common. It is found in a variety of hab

clear streams to warm, turbid rivers. Adults prefer deep rifrocky substrates. Young occupy low-velocity shoreline or habitats. 
TABLE 3.7.1-1 (Cont.) Family and Common Name Scientific Name Origin Present Distribution in the Upper Colorado River Ba

Catostomidae (Suckers) (Cont.) Flannelmouth sucker Catostomus latipinnis Native Widespread, rare to common. It is found in warmwater rea

channels. Adults typically occupy pools and deeper runs, eYoung occupy low-velocity shoreline or seasonally floode

Mountain sucker Catostomus platyrhynchus Native Common in the upper Green River drainage in Wyoming; 

Green River of Utah upstream of the Yampa River confluethe Yampa and White Rivers; common in tributaries of the San Rafael Rivers in Utah; locally abundant in Piceance Cprefers cool, clear streams with rocky substrates. Razorback sucker Xyrauchen texanus Native Federally listed as endangered (see Section 3.7.4). It is fou

of the Green and Colorado Rivers and lower portions of mprimarily occurs in flat-water sections of the middle Green Duchesne and Yampa Rivers and between Palisade and LoRiver. Larvae have recently been found in the lower reache

Utah, indicating that adults are also present during some pethat successful reproduction is occurring in the White Riveruns, pools, eddies, and seasonally flooded lowlands. Younnursery habitat with quiet, warm, shallow water such as tribackwaters, and especially floodplain wetlands. 

Ictaluridae (Bullheads and Catfishes)

Black bullhead Ameiurus melasb Introduced Sporadic distribution in middle and lower sections of the G

and White Rivers. It is incidental to rare in main-channel habundant in inundated floodplain habitat adjacent to the mfound in turbid backwaters, seasonally flooded habitats, imlow-gradient river reaches with muddy bottoms. 
TABLE 3.7.1-1 (Cont.) Family and Common Name Scientific Name Origin Present Distribution in the Upper Colorado River Ba

Ictaluridae (Bullheads and Catfishes) (Cont.) Channel catfish Ictalurus punctatusb Introduced Widespread, common to abundant in middle and lower sec

optimum riverine habitat has warm water and a diversity ostructural features that provide cover and feeding areas. In 

Rivers, it is most abundant in rocky, turbulent, high-gradie

Esocidae (Pikes) Northern pike Esox lucius Introduced Occurs in several rivers and impoundments but is infreque

reaches of the Yampa River and middle Green River, wherduring spring sampling for adult Colorado pikeminnow anprimarily inhabits vegetated ponds, marshes, and larger lakmouths of tributaries; and seasonally flooded habitats of la

Salmonidae (Trouts)

Cutthroat troutc Oncorhynchus clarkic Native and 

introducedc

Rare to common in certain upstream river reaches (e.g., Grof Flaming Gorge Dam; stocked in tailwaters) or impoundclear headwater streams. Native Colorado River cutthroat tas remnant populations in isolated high-elevation tributarieunder interagency conservation agreements among state, tragencies (CRCT Conservation Team 2006). 

Rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss Introduced Common to abundant in the Green River upstream of the Y

(stocked in Flaming Gorge Reservoir and tailwaters), inciddownstream, and common to abundant in upper sections o

and White River drainages. It prefers pools, eddies, runs, agravel or cobble substrates. 

Kokanee (landlocked form of Sockeye salmon) 

Oncorhynchus nerka Introduced Common in Fontenelle and Flaming Gorge Reservoirs on t

Aspinall Reservoirs on the Gunnison River; rare in tailwatprobable escapee from the reservoirs. It prefers pelagic zon
TABLE 3.7.1-1 (Cont.) Family and Common Name Scientific Name Origin Present Distribution in the Upper Colorado River Ba

Salmonidae (Trouts) (Cont.) Mountain whitefish Prosopium williamsoni Native Incidental to rare in the Green River upstream of the Yamp

in lower sections of the Yampa and White Rivers; common Yampa, White, and Duchesne Rivers. It prefers streams anwater and gravel or rubble substrates. Brown trout Salmo trutta Introduced Common in cool- and cold-water reaches of the Colorado 

the Green River upstream of the Yampa River confluence the Duchesne River drainage, and rare in the Yampa and Wdeep pools, riffles, and runs with sand or cobble substrates current. Brook trout Salvelinus fontinalis Introduced Rare to common in the Green River upstream of the Yamp(stocked in Flaming Gorge Dam tailwaters) and in Soldier Reservoirs; found in headwater areas of tributaries. It prefestreams with gravel substrate. 

Lake trout Salvelinus namaycush Introduced Present in Flaming Gorge and Fontenelle Reservoirs on the 

Blue Mesa Reservoir on the Gunnison River. Prefers cold, lakes and reservoirs. 

Gadidae (Cods)

Burbot Lota lota Introduced Relatively new introduction and abundance status is unclea

River, including Flaming Gorge and Fontenelle Reservoirswaters in streams and lakes and impoundments and usually 

Cyprinodontidae (Killifishes)

Plains killifish Fundulus kansae Introduced Locally common in some warmwater ponds and in some ri

Colorado River subbasin. 
TABLE 3.7.1-1 (Cont.) Family and Common Name Scientific Name Origin Present Distribution in the Upper Colorado River Ba

Poeciliidae (Livebearers) Western mosquitofish Gambusia affinis Introduced Locally common in some warmwater ponds and in some ri

Colorado River subbasin; incidental to rare, very sporadic River subbasin. It prefers warm, slack-water areas. Gasterosteidae (Sticklebacks) Brook stickleback Culaea inconstans Introduced Incidental in the upper Yampa River drainages and in the m

between Jensen and Ouray, Utah (almost exclusively in floprefers clear, cool, densely vegetated waters of slow-flowiponds. Cottidae (Sculpins) Mottled sculpin Cottus bairdi Native Rare to common in the portions of the Colorado and Green 

Gunnison, Yampa, Duchesne, Price, and San Rafael Riverriffles and deep runs with rocky substrates in streams and r

Bear Lake sculpin Cottus extensus Introduced Naturally endemic to Bear Lake, on the Utah-Idaho border

and become established in Flaming Gorge Reservoir. It is lspecies by the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. It prefand spawns among rocks close to the shoreline. 

Centrarchidae (Sunfishes)

Green sunfish Lepomis cyanellus Introduced Common to abundant in some warmwater lakes and ponds

middle Green and lower Yampa, Duchesne, and White Rivthe Green River near the confluences of the Duchesne and adjacent inundated floodplain habitat; locally common to aof the Gunnison and Colorado Rivers. It prefers backwater streams or weed beds in warmwater lakes and reservoirs. 
TABLE 3.7.1-1 (Cont.) Family and Common Name Scientific Name Origin Present Distribution in the Upper Colorado River Ba

Centrarchidae (Sunfishes) (Cont.) Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus Introduced Incidental in riverine habitats, but locally common in some 

reservoirs. It prefers shallow, warm lakes and ponds or slostreams with abundant aquatic vegetation. Smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieui Introduced Present in some cool and warmwater lakes, ponds, and resrocky shorelines in Flaming Gorge Reservoir. Generally rain Utah but locally common in areas near the confluences oWhite Rivers; locally common in some areas of the middle River. It prefers clear, wide, fast-flowing runs and flowing rubble substrates. Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides Introduced Present in some warmwater lakes and ponds and in the CoRivers. Locally common in the lower Yampa River and in downstream of the Yampa River confluence; rare in Flamiprefers clear, quiet waters in rivers with aquatic vegetation zones in lakes and reservoirs. 

Black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus Introduced Present in some warmwater lakes and ponds; incidental in 

Colorado River and in the Green River near the confluenceWhite Rivers. It inhabits clear, warm, quiet waters of pondof larger rivers; it is generally found where there is abunda

Percidae (Perches)

Walleye Sander vitreusd Introduced Incidental to rare in the Duchesne River, incidental in the Y

Rivers, and incidental in the lower Colorado River. It prefeand lakes with moderately deep, clear water, often found in usually associated with emergent or bank vegetation. 

Footnotes on next page. 
TABLE 3.7.1-1 (Cont.) a Abundant = occurring in large numbers and consistently collected in a designated area; common = occurring in moderate numbers 

in a designated area; rare = occurring in low numbers, either in a restricted area or having a sporadic distribution over a larger area

in very low numbers and known from only a few collections. b The Kendall Warm Springs dace (Rhinichthys osculus thermalis) is a federally listed endangered subspecies restricted to Kendall W

upper Green River drainage, Wyoming (see Section 3.7.4). c Includes native Colorado River cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki pleuriticus), non-native Snake River Yellowstone cutthroat tr

clarki bouvieri), and non-native Bear Lake Bonneville cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki utah). d Scientific name changed from Stizostedion vitreum (Nelson et al. 2004). Sources: Behnke et al. (1982); Tyus et al. (1982); Miller and Hubert (1990); Muth and Nesler (1993); Muth et al. (2000); Lentsch et a

Haines (1996); McAda (2003); Woodling (1985); Tyrus and Saunders (1996). 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-138 

 Arid desert ecosystems are particularly susceptible to climate change because of their 

already harsh temperature and precipitation conditions (Archer and Predick 2008). The effects of 

climate change on the Colorado River Basin could be severe and may result in the loss of some 

endemic fish species as well as invertebrate and plant species. Climate change is predicted to 

produce the following changes in the physical characteristics of the Colorado River Basin: 

• An increase in temperature (1 to 3°C over the next 20 to 60 years; Belnap and 

Campbell 2011); 

• A reduction in runoff (6 to 20% decrease by 2050 in the upper Colorado River 

Basin; Ray et al. 2008); 

• A reduction in streamflow (decreases from about 5 to 20% per 1°C; Ray et al. 

2008); 

• A reduction in precipitation (not all studies agree on the change in 

precipitation, but most predict an increase in drought length and intensity and 

rain storm intensity; Cayan et al. 2010; Belnap and Campbell 2011); and 

• A reduction in annual snowpack (10 to 20% reduction above 8,200 ft and a 

larger reduction below 8,200 ft; Ray et al. 2008). 

 An increase in water temperature could make some streams or stream segments 

uninhabitable for some native aquatic species. Since many aquatic species in the Southwest 

already live in water at the upper limits of their temperature tolerance, any temperature increase 

could further limit their habitat range or result in extirpation. Water temperature is also an 

important regulator of fish migration and insect emergence, and the projected temperature 

increase could disrupt the timing of life-cycle stages of some organisms (Whitehead et al. 2009). 

 Decreased precipitation, snowpack, and runoff would lead to more frequent and 

persistent droughts in the Colorado River Basin. Increases in drought conditions could result in 

an increase in water salinity throughout the basin (Everard 1996). Higher salinities may allow 

establishment of new non-native species and may allow invasive species already established 

(e.g., the red shiner, western mosquitofish, and plains killifish) with higher salinity tolerances 

than native species to become more dominant (Rahel and Olden 2008). Drought in the arid 

Southwestern United States also leads to drying of ephemeral or shallow streams, which reduces 

connectivity of populations and can result in extirpation of native fish and insect populations 

(Propst et al. 2008; Boulton and Lake 2008). Reduced connectivity also eliminates an important 

dispersal mechanism for aquatic insects (Boulton and Lake 2008). 

 A decrease in streamflow may quickly cause local extinctions of insects that require fastflowing and well-oxygenated water, such as mayflies and caddisflies (Boulton and Lake 2008), 

and could favor fish species that prefer slower-moving and shallower waters. A reduction in 

streamflow coupled with increased water temperatures would decrease the amount of dissolved 

oxygen in some basin waters and could lead to hypoxia (Whitehead et al. 2009). Prolonged 

periods of low stream flows associated with climate change may also increase the establishment 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-139 

success of some non-native species. During times of low flow, some invasive species (e.g., red 

shiner, common carp, western mosquitofish, and crayfish) can dominate the fish communities in 

arid regions (Rahel and Olden 2008; Martinez 2011). 

 The drying of ephemeral waters and decreases in water depth of permanent waters would 

result in a decrease in spatial or temporal extent of habitat available to aquatic species as well as 

a reduction in habitat complexity (Lake 2003). The Colorado River Basin supports a unique 

biotic community of fishes well adapted to arid conditions, and historical species-level 

endemism for fishes within the region is high (Minckley et al. 2003). This decrease in habitat 

range could potentially lead to a reduction in the number of distinct populations of endemics and 

a greater risk of extinction. Reduction in habitat could also result in increased competition 

among species for food and space resources, as well as an increase in predation. 

 An increase in rainstorm intensity in the Southwestern United States would periodically 

increase erosion rates and subsequently increase turbidity of streams (Archer and Predick 2008); 

this could impact species that prefer less turbid conditions. More intense rainfall is also likely to 

increase runoff from developed areas during storm events and could increase the amount of 

chemicals deposited into receiving streams (Whitehead et al. 2009). Increased nitrogen and 

phosphorus in streams from agricultural runoff promotes the growth of algal blooms, which can 

contribute to the creation of hypoxic conditions. 

 The following subsections provide additional detail about aquatic resources within the 

vicinity of each of the oil shale basins and STSAs. 

3.7.1.1 Oil Shale Basins 

 The principal hydrologic subbasins that could potentially receive waters from the four oil 

shale basins are the Great Divide–Upper Green River subbasin, the White–Yampa River 

subbasin, the Colorado Headwaters subbasin, and the Lower Green River subbasin. The major 

rivers draining these subbasins include the Green River, the White River, the Yampa River, and 

the Colorado River. The only major reservoir that falls within the potentially affected areas is 

Flaming Gorge Reservoir. In addition, several smaller rivers and streams, as well as a number of 

small natural lakes and impoundments, occur within the potentially affected areas. 

3.7.1.1.1 Green River Oil Shale Basin. Riverine habitats within the Green River Oil 

Shale Basin are associated with portions of the main stem of the Green River in Wyoming, 

between Fontenelle Reservoir and Flaming Gorge Reservoir, and with various perennial and 

intermittent tributaries to the upper Green River. In total, there are approximately 205 mi of 

perennial stream habitat located within the geologically prospective portion of the Green River 

Oil Shale Basin. The upstream half of Flaming Gorge Reservoir (approximately 36,000 acres) 

and a number of small reservoirs, lakes, and ponds also fall within the potentially affected area. 

The oil shale areas are located at least 0.5 mi from Fontenelle Reservoir. 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-140 

 The fish community in Flaming Gorge Reservoir consists primarily of introduced species, 

including lake trout, brown trout, rainbow trout, cutthroat trout, kokanee, white sucker, 

smallmouth bass, channel catfish, common carp, Utah chub, redside shiner, and the Bear Lake 

sculpin. It also supports small numbers of native fish species, including flannelmouth sucker, 

mountain whitefish, and the mottled sculpin (BOR 2005). 

 Rainbow trout have been annually stocked in Flaming Gorge Reservoir since it was 

filled, and this species provides the bulk of the angler harvest. Kokanee were stocked during the 

mid-1960s and have developed naturally reproducing fisheries. After rainbow trout, kokanee are 

typically second in harvest and popularity with anglers. Other sport fish occasionally stocked in 

the reservoir include brown trout and channel catfish. Lake trout entered Flaming Gorge 

Reservoir from the upper Green River drainage and have also become established as a wild 

population. Smallmouth bass were introduced into Flaming Gorge Reservoir in the 1960s to 

promote growth of rainbow trout by reducing the Utah chub population (Teuscher and 

Luecke 1996), and now occur in rocky shoreline habitat throughout Flaming Gorge Reservoir 

(BOR 2005). 

 Burbot (also called ling), a member of the cod family, were illegally introduced into the 

Green River in 2005 and have now become established in Flaming Gorge and Fontenelle 

Reservoirs as well as the connecting portion of the Green River and some tributaries 

(WGFD 2006). Small numbers of burbot may also be present in the Green River downstream of 

Flaming Gorge Dam, as evidenced by the capture of a single individual during the summer of 

2010. These fish are aggressive predators that feed on other fish and invertebrates, and there are 

concerns that this species could negatively affect both game and nongame fish populations in the 

upper Green River subbasin. 

 Several streams within the geologically prospective oil shale areas in the Green River Oil 

Shale Basin are considered Crucial Priority Habitat Areas by the Wyoming Game and Fish 

Department (WGFD) based on significant biological and ecological values and ecologically 

important species or communities. The WGFD has also designated Enhancement Priority Areas 

targeted for habitat enhancement activities. Within the geologically prospective oil shale areas, 

Bitter Creek, Flaming Gorge, and Hams Fork have been classified as Crucial Aquatic Habitat 

Areas, while the Lower Big Sandy has been designated a Priority Enhancement Area. The Green 

River, Sage Creek, and Blacks Fork are Crucial Aquatic Habitat and Enhancement Priority Areas 

(http://gf.state.wy.us/habitat/PriorityAreas/GreenRiver/index.asp). Several other Crucial Aquatic 

Habitat and Enhancement Priority Areas are present within in the Green River Basin 

(http://gf.state.wy.us/habitat/PriorityAreas/GreenRiver/index.asp). A significant, nationally 

recognized trout fishery exists in the portion of the main stem of the Green River within this 

region; the fishery includes target species such as rainbow, brown, brook, and cutthroat trout. 

The WGFD manages the fishery through the use of various regulations, including creel limits, 

size limits, and tackle restrictions. On the basis of surveys conducted in April 2005, the main 

stem of the Green River in the vicinity of Seedskadee National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) was 

estimated to have high densities of catchable-sized trout (more than 190 trout per mile of river) 

(WGFD 2006). Trout fisheries also exist in the Big Sandy and Little Sandy River from their 

confluence near Farson to their headwaters. In the Green River Oil Shale Basin, between 

Flaming Gorge and Wyoming Highway 191, there are tributaries to the Green River such as 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-141 

Sage Creek and Currant Creek that contain Colorado River cutthroat trout populations 

(Hirsch et al. 2006). Populations in Current Creek are 80–89% genetically pure. 

 As indicated in Section 3.7.1, bluehead sucker, flannelmouth sucker, and roundtail chub 

are all considered extremely rare species of special concern within the state of Wyoming, and are 

considered sensitive species by the BLM. All three of these species occur within the geologically 

prospective oil shale areas in the Green River Oil Shale Basin. Bluehead sucker occur in the Big 

and Little Sandy Rivers, the main-stem Green River, Hams Fork River, and the Blacks Fork 

River; a reproductively isolated population also occurs in the Ringdahl Reservoir, located in the 

Henrys Fork drainage (WGFD 2010a). Flannelmouth sucker are known to occur in the Big and 

Little Sandy Rivers, the main-stem Green River, Bitter Creek, the Blacks Fork, Hams Fork, 

Smiths Fork, Muddy Creek (tributary to Blacks Fork), and Henrys Fork drainages 

(WGFD 2010a). Hybridization of native sucker species with white suckers is considered a 

potential threat to the maintenance of the populations of the native species. At present, the only 

known population of flannelmouth sucker in Wyoming that is reproductively isolated from white 

sucker is found in the upper Bitter Creek drainage (WGFD 2010a). Roundtail chub are known to 

occur in the Blacks Fork drainage, including the Hams Fork and Muddy Creek (WGFD 2010a). 

 None of the four endangered Upper Colorado River fish species occur in the Flaming 

Gorge Reservoir or in the upstream portions of the Green River subbasin. Historically, the 

Colorado pikeminnow probably occurred in the upper Green River as far as Green River, 

Wyoming, and records indicate that the humpback chub and the bonytail were present upstream 

of the current location of Flaming Gorge Dam (Muth et al. 2000). Historic occurrence of the 

razorback sucker upstream of the location of Flaming Gorge Dam is less likely 

(Muth et al. 2000). 

3.7.1.1.2 Washakie Oil Shale Basin. Two perennial streams (totaling less than 17 mi of 

stream habitat) pass through the portion of the Washakie Oil Shale Basin where extraction from 

the oil shale deposits is considered feasible. Approximately 7 mi of Vermillion Creek and 10 mi 

of Alkali Creek pass through the area. No significant fisheries are known to occur within these 

portions of these streams, although trout habitat exists in portions of the North Fork of the 

Vermillion River, located upstream of the prospective oil shale extraction areas. Historically, 

approximately 56 mi (0.3%) of the Vermillion Creek watershed were occupied by Colorado 

River cutthroat trout, although none of the historically occupied habitat currently contains 

Colorado River cutthroat trout (Hirsch et al. 2006). 

 Another perennial stream, Bitter Creek, is located within 0.25 mi of the potentially 

affected area. This stream drainage did not historically support Colorado River cutthroat trout 

(Hirsch et al. 2006), but does support a warmwater native fish assemblage identified by the 

WGFD as a Priority Enhancement Area (http://gf.state.wy.us/habitat/PriorityAreas/GreenRiver/ 

index.asp). Native species in this stream include flannelmouth sucker, speckled dace, and 

mountain sucker (Carter and Hubert 1995). 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-142 

3.7.1.1.3 Uinta Oil Shale Basin. Aquatic habitats within the Uinta Oil Shale Basin are 

primarily associated with the Green River watershed, although some small perennial and 

intermittent tributaries of the upper Colorado River subbasin are present in the southeastern 

portion of the oil shale basin. In total, approximately 193 mi of perennial stream habitat falls 

within the geologically prospective area of the Uinta Oil Shale Basin. The portion of the Uinta 

Oil Shale Basin from which extraction is considered feasible neighbors approximately 70 mi of 

the middle Green River downstream from Ouray, Utah. In addition, a substantial portion of the 

lower White River, a significant tributary to the middle Green River, falls within the potentially 

affected area. Several reservoirs, ponds, and small lakes also fall within the Uinta Oil Shale 

Basin. 

 The portions of the Green River and the White River within and adjacent to the Uinta 

Oil Shale Basin are predominantly inhabited by warmwater native and non-native fishes 

(Lentsch et al. 2000; Muth et al. 2000). The predominant fish species likely to be present within 

adjacent portions of these two rivers and associated tributaries belong to families Cyprinidae 

(minnows), Catosomidae (suckers), Cottidae (sculpins), Centrachidae (sunfishes), and Ictaluridae 

(catfishes). This section of the Green River is a concentration area for federally endangered 

Colorado pikeminnow and razorback sucker; bonytail and humpback chub could also occur in 

this area (Section 3.7.4), although less commonly (Muth et al. 2000). Colorado pikeminnow have 

been reported from the White River within this oil shale basin (Lentsch et al. 2000). Larval 

razorback sucker were recently found in the lower reaches of the White River in Utah, 5 mi 

upstream of the confluence with the Green River, indicating that adults are present during some 

periods of the year and that successful reproduction is occurring in the White River. 

 Bitter Creek and Evacuation Creek are intermittent through or adjacent to the study area 

and do not continually support populations of fish. Speckled dace and mountain sucker could be 

found within that portion of Bitter Creek flowing through the study area during high flow 

periods, although the stream frequently dries up during hot, dry summers. No fish species are 

known to use the streams or ponds emanating from springs or flowing wells in the Asphalt Wash 

drainage (BLM 2006e). 

 Pariette Draw, a tributary to the Green River in the northwestern portion of the study 

area, is used to supply water to the Pariette Wetlands. These wetlands, which are managed 

primarily for waterfowl, contain a number of small warmwater ponds. 

3.7.1.1.4 Piceance Basin. As identified in Section 3.4, the Piceance Oil Shale Basin is 

drained by three major river systems: (1) the White River basin to the north, (2) the Colorado 

River basin through the central portion, and (3) the Gunnison River basin to the south. However, 

the Gunnison River subbasin does not fall within the portion of the Piceance Basin that is 

considered feasible for extraction of oil shale resources. In total, approximately 128 mi of 

perennial stream habitat occurs within this oil shale basin. 

 Although the White River itself does not fall within the study area, two principal 

tributaries to the upper White River, Yellow Creek and Piceance Creek, are within the study 

area, along with several of their tributaries (Corral Gulch, Ryan Gulch, Black Sulphur Creek, 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-143 

Hunter Creek, and Willow Creek). Some portions of these smaller tributaries go dry during some 

seasons of the year and do not sustain fish for portions of the year. The lower reaches of Yellow 

Creek (downstream of Barcus Creek) support populations of speckled dace, brown trout, and 

mountain sucker (Chadwick Ecological Consultants 2002, as cited in BLM 2006g). Fawn Creek 

also falls within the study area and supports mountain sucker (Belica and Nibbelink 2006). 

Although mostly privately owned, the lower reaches of Willow Creek support speckled dace and 

mountain sucker. Rainbow and brook trout have been observed farther upstream (BLM 2011c). 

Two small tributaries to Parachute Creek (East and West Forks of Parachute Creek) are located 

within or adjacent to the study area. Parachute Creek itself is a tributary to the upper Colorado 

River. Because the conditions in these streams represent a transition between cold- and 

warmwater stream segments, fish species include trout, as well as some species of suckers and 

minnows. Piceance Creek supports populations of sensitive native fish, including flannelmouth 

sucker, mountain sucker (Belica and Nibbelink 2006), and speckled dace. Trout that appear 

occasionally in collections are probably stocked fish that have escaped from privately owned 

upstream ponds (BLM 2006d). 

 Although no endangered fish occur within the study area itself, Colorado pikeminnow 

occupy the lower White River downstream of Taylor Draw dam, located approximately 10 mi 

west of the study area (Martinez et al. 1994). The White River and its 100-year floodplain below 

Rio Blanco Lake (approximately 3 mi from the study area) have been designated as critical 

habitat for the Colorado pikeminnow. Martinez et al. (1994) reported that the Colorado 

pikeminnow has been extirpated upstream of Taylor Draw Dam. The razorback sucker, also 

federally listed as an endangered species, is unlikely to be present in the upper reaches of the 

White River, although larval razorback sucker have recently been observed in the lower portion 

of the White River near the confluence with the Green River. This indicates that razorback 

suckers are successfully spawning in the lower White River. Additional information about the 

Colorado River Basin endangered fish species is presented in Section 3.7.4. 

 The upstream portion of Black Sulphur Creek within the study area supports a selfsustaining population of Colorado River cutthroat trout, although there is evidence of 

hybridization with rainbow trout. Because it is a relatively remote location with barriers to 

movement from downstream locations (i.e., physical barriers and water diversions), this stream 

has been identified as having potential as a reintroduction location for genetically pure strains of 

Colorado River cutthroat trout. Populations of mountain sucker exist in the lower reaches of 

Black Sulphur Creek (BLM 2011c). 

 Angling opportunities within the vicinity of the Piceance Oil Shale Basin are provided by 

some of the perennial streams and by several nearby reservoirs that are located outside of the oil 

shale study area. Portions of the Yampa River currently provide smallmouth bass and northern 

pike angling opportunities, although the presence of these non-native species is considered 

detrimental to efforts to recover Colorado River Basin endangered fish within the reaches of the 

Yampa River that are designated as critical habitat. Kenney Reservoir, located approximately 

25 mi from the oil shale basin study area, provides angling opportunities for black crappie and 

other warmwater species. Rifle Gap Reservoir and Harvey Gap Reservoir, located east of the 

study area, provide angling opportunities for northern pike, walleye, yellow perch, and trout. 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-144 

Parachute Creek, located southwest of the oil shale study area, provides angling opportunities for 

trout. 

 At least five species of native freshwater mussel (fingernail and pill clams, family 

Sphaeriidae) inhabit streams and rivers in portions of Rio Blanco and Garfield Counties where 

oil shale development could occur (Wu and Brandauer 1978). Little is known about the historic 

distribution of this group of small clams, and the current status of these mussels in Colorado is 

unknown (Sovell and Guralnick 2004; Nelson and Guralnick 2007). However, some closely 

related species in other areas of North America have experienced significant declines in 

populations in the past few decades (Wilson et al. 1995). Native mussel species have been 

collected in the both the White River and Piceance Creek in the vicinity of the Piceance Oil 

Shale Basin (Sovell and Guralnick 2004; Nelson and Guralnick 2007). 

3.7.1.2 Special Tar Sand Areas 

 The Asphalt Ridge, Raven Ridge, Pariette, Hill Creek, and P.R. Spring STSAs are all 

within areas that eventually drain to the Green River. Warmwater aquatic communities, similar 

to those described previously for the Uinta Oil Shale Basin occur within these areas. Many of the 

drainages within these areas are intermittent. However, the Asphalt Ridge area is adjacent to the 

Green River itself. Other perennial tributaries of the Green River within these STSAs include 

Ashley Creek, Cliff Creek, and Pariette Draw. While no endangered fishes would be expected 

to occur directly within these STSAs, they could occur in nearby areas of the Green River 

(Section 3.7.4). In total, approximately 107 mi of perennial stream habitat occur within the 

STSAs. 

 The Sunnyside STSA is drained by portions of Dry Creek, Cottonwood Canyon, and 

Nine Mile Creek, which eventually drain to the Green River via Nine Mile Creek. No significant 

fisheries are known to occur within these areas, although warmwater fish communities would be 

expected to be present in these drainages. In addition, an intermittent drainage, Range Creek, 

occurs within this area. Range Creek provides habitat for small populations of brown and 

cutthroat trout. 

 The Argyle Canyon STSA is within the vicinity of a single drainage, the South Fork of 

Avintaquin Creek. This creek, which is a tributary of the Strawberry River, may support trout, 

although information is limited. Hirsch et al. (2006) identify this creek as having poor habitat for 

Colorado River cutthroat trout. The Argyle Canyon STSA is also traversed by Argyle Creek, 

which is a tributary of Nine Mile Creek. 

 In addition to being drained by a number of intermittent drainages, the San Rafael STSA 

surrounds a portion of the San Rafael River. Fish in the San Rafael River, which is a tributary to 

the lower Green River, include a high proportion of warmwater native fishes (approximately 

70%), including bluehead sucker, flannelmouth sucker, roundtail chub, speckled dace, and 

Colorado pikeminnow (Tyus and Saunders 2001). The San Rafael River is also used by 

endangered fishes. Colorado pikeminnow have been captured in the lower 35 mi of the 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-145 

San Rafael River, and small numbers of razorback suckers occur in the Green River near the 

mouth of the San Rafael River (Muth et al. 2000; Tyus and Saunders 2001). 

 The Tar Sand Triangle STSA is drained by Big Water and Horse Canyons to the 

northeast and by French Spring Fork, Happy Canyon, and the Dirty Devil River to the northwest 

and west. Big Water and Horse Canyons are perennial tributaries to the Colorado River; French 

Spring Fork and Happy Canyon are ephemeral or intermittent drainages that enter the Dirty 

Devil River. The Dirty Devil River itself is a perennial stream that drains into the northern end of 

Lake Powell and supports a warmwater fish community. The Dirty Devil arm of Lake Powell is 

included in designated critical habitat for the razorback sucker (59 FR 13374), and small 

numbers of razorback suckers have been found in Lake Powell near the mouth of the Dirty Devil 

River (Section 3.7.4). 

 The Circle Cliffs and White Canyon STSAs both are also drained by intermittent or 

ephemeral tributaries that eventually drain to Lake Powell. Because these areas do not contain 

perennial flows, the presence of aquatic communities is likely limited. However, portions of the 

tributaries draining the Circle Cliffs and White Canyon areas may contain warmwater fish 

assemblages. 

3.7.2 Plant Communities and Habitats 

3.7.2.1 Piceance Basin 

 The Piceance Basin lies within the Colorado Plateau ecoregion. An ecoregion is an area 

in which ecosystems have a general similarity; an ecoregion is characterized by the spatial 

pattern and composition of biotic and abiotic features. Colorado ecoregions are described by 

Chapman et al. (2006) and are shown in Figure 3.7.2-1. The Colorado Plateau ecoregion is 

characterized by a rugged tableland of mesas, plateaus, mountains, and canyons, often with 

abrupt changes in local relief. 

 Within this ecoregion, the northern portion of the basin, primarily located in Rio Blanco 

County, is included in the Semiarid Benchlands and Canyonlands subregion. Broad benches and 

mesas in alternating areas of high and low relief support grassland, shrub, and woodland 

vegetation types. Escarpments, hillslopes, cuestas, alluvial fans, and narrow canyons are also 

characteristic of this region. A few isolated peaks also occur. Elevations range from 5,400 to 

9,200 ft, with local relief up to 1,000 ft. Deep soils of fine sand support sagebrush steppe with 

warm-season grasses (i.e., galleta grass [Pleuraphis jamesii] and blue grama [Bouteloua 

gracilis]), as well as shrubs (primarily black sagebrush [Artemisia nova], winterfat 

[krascheninnikovia lanata], mormon tea [Ephedra viridis], fourwing saltbush [Atriplex 

canescens], and shadscale [Atriplex confertifolia]). Shallow stony soils support pinyon-juniper 

woodlands of two-needle pinyon pine (Pinus edulis) and Utah juniper (Juniperus osteosperma). 

Scattered woodlands of gambel oak (Quercus gambelii) occur at the higher elevations. 

Woodlands have expanded beyond their original range because of fire suppression and erosion. 

The average annual precipitation is about 10 to 18 in. in lower areas and 20 to 25 in. at the 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-146 

FIGURE 3.7.2-1 Ecoregions and Oil Shale Basin of Northwestern Colorado 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-147 

highest elevations. This subregion has a moderate to long growing season with 60 to 120 mean 

annual frost-free days. Vegetation is generally not as sparse as in the drier ecoregions. 

 The southern portion of the Piceance Basin, in Garfield County, lies within the 

Escarpments subregion. Extensive cliff-bench complexes characterize this region and ascend to 

the forested mountain rim. High, deeply dissected cliffs, escarpments, and mesa tops are typical 

of this region. Elevations range from 6,000 to 9,000 ft, with local relief up to 3,000 ft. The Book 

Cliffs and Roan Cliffs are major scarp slopes in the region, and the region is prone to landslides. 

The average annual precipitation is 15 to 25 in., with up to 32 in. at higher elevations. This 

subregion has a short to moderate growing season with 60 to 90 mean annual frost-free days. 

Lower drier sites in the region support desert and semidesert grassland or shrubland, while steep, 

north-facing slopes at higher elevations support Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) forest with 

mountain mahogany (Cercocarpus sp.) and aspen (Populus sp.). The predominant vegetation 

type of shallow soils on escarpments and benches is pinyon-juniper woodland. Mountain 

mahogany and aspen woodlands are additional vegetation types. 

 The majority of the Piceance Basin lies within the White River Resource Area. 

Pinyon-juniper woodland is the predominant vegetation community, composing 46% of the 

resource area and occurring at elevations from about 5,200 to 8,000 ft (BLM 1997a). Pinyon pine 

and Utah juniper are the dominant species; however, common juniper and one-seed juniper may 

also occur. This community is frequent on dry ridgetops with shallow soils. Utah juniper is 

dominant on drier sites, such as lower elevations and south or west exposures, while pinyon pine 

is dominant on locations with higher soil moisture. The canopy ranges from open to closed, with 

understory shrub and herbaceous vegetation density subsequently ranging from high to low. The 

sagebrush vegetation type composes 21% of the resource area and includes various sagebrush 

species with a mixed short-to-tall growth. The shrub density ranges from open to closed with a 

corresponding high-to-low density of understory species. Big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata) is 

the dominant species below 7,000-ft elevations, and associates may include shadscale and 

winterfat. Herbaceous associates include squirreltail (Elymus elymoides), Indian ricegrass 

(Achnatherum hymenoides), Colorado wildrye (Leymus ambiguus), needle-and-thread 

(Hesperostipa comata), goldenweed (Haplopappus sp.), and scarlet globemallow (Sphaeralcea 

coccinea). Sagebrush communities at higher elevations typically include species associated with 

mountain shrub communities, including wheatgrasses (Agropyron spp.), bluegrasses (Poa spp.), 

needlegrasses (Stipa spp.), bromegrasses (Bromus spp.), arrowleaf balsamroot (Balsamorhiza 

sagittata), and penstemons (Penstemon spp.). 

 Mountain shrub communities include medium-sized to large tree-like shrubs. These 

communities generally occur at upper elevations on east, west, and north slopes. The shrub 

canopy is open to dense, with some areas of open canopy having the highest levels of herbaceous 

species production and diversity of any plant association in the resource area. This community 

type covers only 11% of the resource area; however, it covers 41% of the NOSR 1, which 

includes the southern portion of the Piceance Basin. Quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides) 

communities occur at elevations above 7,000 ft on northern to northeastern exposures. The 

canopy ranges from open to dense, with open stands having a higher production and diversity 

of grasses and forbs, and dense stands supporting a thick understory of woody species. Aspen 

communities occupy less than 5% of the resource area, but about 12% of the NOSR 1. 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-148 

 Greasewood shrub communities occur on drainage bottoms with poorly drained soils 

from 5,200 to 6,600 ft in elevation. Many drainages in the resource area, including the White 

River and Yellow Creek drainages, support extensive greasewood (Sarcobatus vermiculatus) 

stands. Dense stands have a sparse growth of short annual herbaceous species, while open stands 

include a mixture of other shrubs with perennial and annual grasses and forbs. Additional 

vegetation communities in the resource area include grasslands, saltbush–salt desert shrub, and 

gambel oak woodlands. Above 7,000 ft, coniferous forest and woodlands of blue spruce (Picea 

pungens), Engelmann spruce (Picea engelmannii), Douglas fir, or subalpine fir (Abies 

lasiocarpa) are present. 

 Barren areas of barren rock, rock outcrops, cliffs, talus slopes, and erosion pavements 

cover 9% of the resource area. These areas are sparsely vegetated or unvegetated and support 

many endemic and rare plant species. A number of species are endemic to semibarren outcrops 

of Green River shale, generally on soils of the Parachute Creek member of the Green River 

Formation, as well as the Uinta Formation (Goodrich and Neese 1986; Welsh and Thorne 1979; 

Atwood et al. 1991; UDWR 2006; USFWS 1993b, 2006i; Colorado Rare Plant Technical 

Committee 1999). These soils are generally shallow, dry, and fine textured with abundant white 

to light tan shale fragments on the surface. These oil-shale endemic species are adapted to the 

xeric and highly basic calcareous shale soils, which in some locations can be erosive, and often 

have a taproot and condensed growth habit. Plant communities at these locations can be varied 

and include open desert shrub, mixed desert shrub, or open pinyon-juniper communities 

(Goodrich and Neese 1986; Welsh and Thorne 1979; Atwood et al. 1991; UDWR 2006; 

USFWS 2006i; Colorado Rare Plant Technical Committee 1999). Many oil-shale endemics, such 

as the Dudley Bluffs twinpod (Physaria obcordata), Dudley Bluffs bladderpod (Lesquerella 

congesta), Parachute beardtongue (Penstemon debilis), and Piceance bladderpod (Lesquerella 

parviflora), have extremely limited distributions and are found only in the Piceance Basin 

(USFWS 1993b; Weber 1987). Others are also known from sites in Utah or Wyoming. Ephedra 

buckwheat (Eriogonum ephedroides) and dragon milk-vetch (Astragalus lutosus), for example, 

are endemic to Green River shale soils of the Piceance and Uinta Basins. These endemic species 

often occur as small scattered populations. Because of their small populations and vulnerability, 

many oil-shale endemics are federally listed, state-listed, or BLM sensitive species 

(Section 3.7.4). Some oil-shale endemics (e.g., dragon milk-vetch) have no official conservation 

status (UDWR 2006). 

The southwestern portion of the Piceance Basin lies within the Grand Junction Resource 

Area. Arid grassland terraces in the resource area support galleta, cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum), 

saline wildrye (Leymus salinus), and broom snakeweed (Gutierrezia sarothrae) (BLM 1987a). A 

number of shrubland communities occur in the resource area. Saltbush communities on benches 

include shadscale, galleta, broom snakeweed, and cheatgrass. Dominant species on eroded land 

include Nuttall’s saltbush (Atriplex nuttallii), shadscale, and saline wildrye. Greasewood 

communities on uplands include black greasewood, cheatgrass, and burr buttercup (Ranunculus 

testiculatus). Associates of black greasewood in washes include perfoliate pepperweed 

(Lepidium perfoliatum) and cheatgrass. Sagebrush communities in valleys include big sagebrush, 

cheatgrass, wheatgrasses, and bluegrasses. Associates of big sagebrush on mesas include black 

sagebrush, galleta, and blue grama; associates on highlands include columbia needlegrass 

(Achnatherum nelsonii), lupines (Lupinus sp.), and gambel oak. Blackbrush (Coleogyne 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-149 

ramosissima) communities on slopes and terraces include prickly pear (Opuntia sp.) and blue 

grama. 

 Pinyon-juniper woodland occurs in the Grand Junction Resource Area at elevations from 

4,800 to 7,500 ft. Pinyon pine is dominant at the higher elevations within that range, while Utah 

juniper dominates at the lower elevations. Associated species on arid mesas include big 

sagebrush and black sagebrush; gambel oak and big sagebrush occur on mesic mesas. Associated 

species on arid slopes include galleta and true mountain mahogany (Cercocarpus montanus); 

true mountain mahogany and serviceberry (Amelanchier sp.) occur on mesic slopes. Douglas fir 

forest generally occurs on steep side slopes at elevations between 7,000 and 9,000 ft. Associates 

include snowberry (Symphoricarpos sp.) and serviceberry. Quaking aspen woodland occurs 

above 7,000 ft on soils with relatively high moisture, such as north and northeast facing slopes. 

Associates include mountain snowberry (Symphoricarpos oreophilus), elk sedge (Carex geyeri), 

and aspen pea-vine (Lathyrus laetivirens). 

 The southeastern corner of the Piceance Basin lies within the Glenwood Springs 

Resource Area. Pinyon-juniper woodland composes 39% of the public land in the resource area, 

with juniper predominating in the western portions (BLM 1988). Mountain shrub communities 

cover 20% of the resource area and are primarily composed of oakbrush and serviceberry and 

include mountain mahogany, bitterbrush (Purshia tridentata), willow (Salix sp.), and alder 

(Alnus sp.). Semidesert shrub communities compose 27% of the public land; however, this type 

occurs primarily on low elevations below the Roan Plateau. The dominant shrubs are sagebrush 

species, including big sagebrush, low sagebrush (Artemisia arbuscula), and black sagebrush, as 

well as other sagebrush species. Additional semidesert shrub species include black greasewood, 

winterfat, shadscale, mat (Atriplex corrugata), and fourwing saltbush, as well as other saltbush 

species, and rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus sp.). Aspen stands, conifer forest, and grassland habitat 

compose smaller portions of the resource area. Aspen is a short-lived, fast-growing, pioneer 

species that is eventually replaced by shade-tolerant conifers such as Engelmann spruce or 

subalpine fir. Harvesting promotes the perpetuation of aspen stands by stimulating root sprouting 

and regrowth. Conifer forest includes Douglas fir forest and Engelmann spruce-subalpine fir 

forest. Forest management promotes a balanced age class distribution that includes stands of all 

ages. 

 Noxious and invasive weeds can adversely affect native ecosystems. These aggressive, 

exotic plant species often displace native plants, thereby altering the species composition and 

community structure of native plant communities (BLM 2006a). They can contribute to 

increased soil erosion, reduced species diversity and structural diversity, and loss of habitat. The 

following noxious and problem weed species occur in the Piceance Basin: leafy spurge 

(Euphorbia esula); houndstongue (Cynoglossum officinale); knapweedsRussian, spotted, and 

diffuse (Acroptilon repens, Centaurea stoebe, and C. diffusa); musk thistle (Carduus nutans); 

Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense); yellow toadflax (Linaria vulgaris); whitetop/hoary cress 

(Cardaria draba); bluebur stickseed (Lappula redowski); cheatgrass; and tall whitetop/perennial 

pepperweed (Lepidium latifolium). 

 The Duck Creek ACEC (3,430 acres), Ryan Gulch ACEC (1,440 acres), and Dudley 

Bluffs ACEC (1,630 acres) are located in the northern portion of the Piceance Basin 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-150 

(Figure 3.1.1-2). These ACECs include several federally listed threatened and candidate plant 

species, state rare species, sensitive species, and remnant vegetation associations. Additional 

ACECs are located outside of the most geologically prospective area. Upper Greasewood Creek 

(in two units), Lower Greasewood Creek, and Yanks Gulch ACECs are located near the northern 

boundary of the basin and south of the White River. The White River Riparian ACEC is 

composed of numerous small blocks along the river, north of the basin and continuing 

downstream. Coal Draw, South Cathedral Bluff, and East Douglas Creek ACECs are also located 

near the basin to the west, and Deer Gulch, Magpie Gulch, and Anvil Points are near the eastern 

boundary. (The Lower Colorado River Cooperative Management Area ACEC, located 

downstream of the basin to the south, is designated for the protection of riparian and wildlife 

values [BLM 1988].) 

 Two ACECs occur in the southeastern portion of the Piceance Basin. The Eastfork 

Parachute Creek ACEC includes three rare plants: the hanging garden sullivantia (Sullivantia 

hapemanii var. purpusii), Utah fescue (Festuca dasyclada), and southwest stickleaf (Mentzelia 

argillosa) (BLM 2006a). In addition, three rare plant communities occur in the ACEC. The 

montane riparian forest is predominantly composed of Colorado blue spruce and redosier 

dogwood (Cornus sericea). The boxelder riparian forest is primarily composed of boxelder 

(Acer negundo), narrowleaf cottonwood (Populus angustifolia), and redosier dogwood. The 

western slope grassland community, which occurs on south-facing slopes of shale or mudstone 

soils, is a shale barrens dominated by Indian ricegrass. The Trapper/Northwater Creek ACEC 

includes two rare plants: hanging garden sullivantia and Utah fescue. Two rare plant 

communities also occur in this ACEC: sagebrush bottomland shrubland and western slope 

grassland. 

 Riparian vegetation communities occur along rivers, perennial and intermittent streams, 

lakes, and reservoirs, and at springs (BLM 1987a, 1988). These communities generally form a 

vegetation zone along the margin or in the stream channel of upper drainages, distinct from the 

adjacent upland area in species composition and density. Riparian communities are dependent on 

the streamflows or reservoir levels and are strongly influenced by the hydrologic regime, which 

affects the frequency, depth, and duration of flooding or soil saturation. Peak flows on major 

streams generally occur in May and June as a result of snowmelt, with low flows in winter. Peak 

flows on smaller streams are often due to summer thunderstorms. Intermittent streams generally 

intersect the water table and have seasonal flow from groundwater discharge at seeps and 

springs, or they may have a surface water source. Ephemeral streams are directly dependent on 

precipitation, having a water table located below the soil surface, and having flow only during 

spring runoff and following intense summer storms (BLM 1997a). Ephemeral streams often do 

not support riparian vegetation. 

 Wetland areas are typically inundated or have saturated soils for a portion of the growing 

season, and support plant communities that are adapted to saturated soil conditions. Unvegetated 

wetlands include mudflats, gravel beaches, and rocky shores (Cowardin et al. 1979). Riparian 

communities may include wetlands; however, the upper margins of riparian zones may be only 

infrequently inundated. Wetlands are generally associated with perennial water sources, such as 

springs, perennial segments of streams, or lakes and ponds. Functions of riparian and wetland 

areas include (1) erosion reduction and water quality improvement by dissipation of stream 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-151 

energy associated with high flows; (2) filtration of sediments and promotion of floodplain 

development; (3) improvement of floodwater retention and groundwater recharge of alluvial 

aquifers; (4) stabilization of stream banks by rootmass development; (5) provision of habitat, 

water depth, duration, and temperature for fish production, waterfowl breeding, and other 

wildlife uses by development of diverse ponding and channel characteristics; and (6) support of 

greater biodiversity (BLM 1997a). 

 Moist meadow wetlands occur at the headwaters of drainages on the Roan Plateau 

(BLM 2006a). These wetlands are dominated by herbaceous species. Riparian shrub 

communities occur along the bottoms of major drainages. These communities include willow 

(Salix sp.), elderberry (Sambucus sp.), gooseberry (Ribes sp.), and riparian grasses. Lower 

reaches of the main drainages on the plateau support a narrow zone of coniferous woodland, 

composed primarily of blue spruce and Engelmann spruce with interspersed shrubs. A number of 

streams on the plateau support deciduous woodlands along their margins. These woodlands are 

composed of narrowleaf cottonwood, boxelder, and shrubs. Hanging gardens occur along canyon 

walls, predominantly north-facing walls where Green River shale beds are exposed, where seeps 

provide consistent moisture throughout the year. 

 In the Grand Junction Resource Area, nonwooded riparian areas support saltcedar 

(Tamarix sp.), saltgrass (Distichlis spicata), rush (Juncus sp.), and bulrush (Scirpus sp.). Species 

of wooded riparian areas include cottonwood, boxelder, skunkbrush (Rhus trilobata), and willow 

(BLM 1987a). Along some rivers, fire has resulted in the removal of some Fremont cottonwood 

(Populus fremontii) stands greater than the rate of replacement. Overgrazing has impacted many 

riparian areas. Riparian and wetland habitats in the Glenwood Springs Resource Area include 

grassland with sedge (Carex sp.) and rush species (BLM 1988). Riparian habitats in this resource 

area also support cottonwood and willow, along with associated grasses and forbs. In this 

resource area, riparian habitats have been greatly impacted by such factors as road construction, 

gravel extraction, water diversions, and livestock grazing. 

3.7.2.2 Uinta Basin 

 The Uinta Basin lies within the Colorado Plateau ecoregion. Ecoregions in Utah are 

described by Woods et al. (2001). The Colorado Plateau ecoregion is characterized by a 

dissected tableland of benches, buttes, mesas, plateaus, salt valleys, cliffs, and canyons 

(Figures 3.7.2-2 and 3.7.2-3). 

 Within this ecoregion, the Uinta Basin Floor subregion includes much of Uintah County 

and portions of Duchesne County. This region lies in a large, arid, synclinal basin with alluvial 

terraces, outwash terraces, floodplains, hills, and ridges; in some areas, mesas and benches 

alternate with lower arable land. Elevations mostly range from 4,300 to 6,400 ft, with local relief 

up to 1,200 ft. The basin receives a large amount of stream runoff from the adjacent mountains. 

The average annual precipitation is about 5 to 8 in., and the growing season is moderate to long, 

with 115 to 140 mean annual frost-free days. Vegetation is predominantly a saltbush-greasewood 

association with shadscale, Wyoming big sagebrush, fourwing saltbush, winterfat, Indian 

ricegrass, galleta, and needle-and-thread; black sagebrush may also be present. 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-152 

FIGURE 3.7.2-2 Ecoregions and Special Tar Sand Areas of Southeastern Utah 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-153 

FIGURE 3.7.2-3 Ecoregions and Special Tar Sand Areas of Northeastern Utah 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-154 

 The Semiarid Benchlands and Canyonlands subregion includes portions of Uintah, 

Duchesne, and Carbon Counties. Broad benches and mesas in alternating areas of high and low 

relief support grassland, shrub, and woodland vegetation types. Escarpments, hillslopes, cuestas, 

alluvial fans, and narrow canyons are also characteristic of this region. Elevations mostly range 

from 5,000 to 7,500 ft, with local relief up to 2,000 ft. A few isolated peaks of higher elevation 

also occur. Bare rock is common. Deep soils of fine sand over most of the region support 

sagebrush steppe with warm-season grasses (i.e., galleta grass and blue grama) and shrubs 

(primarily black sagebrush, big sagebrush, blackbrush, winterfat, mormon tea, and fourwing 

saltbush). Shallow stony soils support pinyon-juniper woodlands of two-needle pinyon pine and 

Utah juniper. Sage parkland or mountain brush occurs on higher elevations. Woodlands have 

expanded beyond their original range because of fire suppression and erosion. The average 

annual precipitation is about 8 to 14 in. in lower areas and 20 to 25 in. at the highest elevations. 

This subregion generally has a moderate to long growing season with 80 to 160 mean annual 

frost-free days, but less than 50 days on the highest areas. Vegetation is generally not as sparse 

as in the drier ecoregions. 

 A number of species are endemic to the Green River shale barrens, generally on soils of 

the Evacuation Creek or Parachute Creek member of the Green River Formation, as well as the 

Uinta Formation (Goodrich and Neese 1986; Welsh and Thorne 1979; Atwood et al. 1991; 

UDWR 2006; USFWS 2006i). These soils are generally shallow, dry, and fine textured with 

abundant white to light tan shale fragments on the surface. These oil-shale endemic species are 

adapted to the xeric and highly basic calcareous shale soils, which in some locations can be 

erosive, and often have a taproot and condensed growth habit. Plant communities at these 

locations can be varied and include open desert shrub, mixed desert shrub, or open pinyonjuniper communities (Goodrich and Neese 1986; Welsh and Thorne 1979; Atwood et al. 1991; 

UDWR 2006; USFWS 2006i). Occurrences of these endemics are often located within a narrow 

band along the southern margin of the Uinta Basin. Many oil-shale endemics, such as the 

shrubby reed-mustard (Schoenocrambe suffrutescens), have extremely limited distributions and 

are found only in the Uinta Basin in Utah (UDWR 2006). Graham’s beardtongue (Penstemon 

grahamii) and White River beardtongue (Penstemon scariosus albifluvis) also occur only in 

the Uinta Basin, primarily in Utah, with some sites in immediately adjacent Colorado. Others 

are also known from oil shale basins in Colorado or Wyoming. Ephedra buckwheat 

(Eriogonum ephedroides) and dragon milk-vetch (Astragalus lutosus), for example, are endemic 

to Green River shale soils in the Piceance and Uinta Basins. These endemic species often occur 

as small scattered populations. Because of their small populations and vulnerability, many 

oil-shale endemic species are federally listed, state-listed, or BLM sensitive species 

(Section 3.7.4). Some oil-shale endemics have no official conservation status, such as dragon 

milk-vetch, fragrant cryptantha (Cryptantha grahamii), Barneby’s columbine (Aquilegia 

barnebyi), Barneby’s thistle (Cirsium barnebyi), and Barneby’s cryptantha (Cryptantha 

barnebyi) (UDWR 2006). 

 Large areas of the Uinta Basin lie within the Uinta Basin Floor subregion of the Colorado 

Plateau ecoregion. Streams have high levels of dissolved solids and suspended sediments. 

Riparian areas support cottonwood trees and Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia), an invasive 

exotic tree (Woods et al. 2001). 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-155 

 The Pariette Wetlands ACEC lies in the northwestern portion of the Uinta Basin. This 

ACEC is also adjoined with the Lower Green River ACEC, which includes riparian habitat and 

special status animal species. The Nine Mile ACEC is located at the southwestern margin of the 

basin and is also adjoined by the Lower Green River ACEC. The Raven Ridge-Addition ACEC 

is located in Colorado near the northeastern boundary of the basin. This ACEC is designated for 

the protection of federally listed plant species. 

3.7.2.3 Green River and Washakie Basins 

 The Green River Basin lies within the Wyoming Basin ecoregion. Ecoregions in 

Wyoming are described by Chapman et al. (2004). The Wyoming Basin ecoregion occupies a 

broad arid basin with scattered hills and low mountains (Figure 3.7.2-4). The climate in the basin 

is influenced by the surrounding mountain ranges. The predominant vegetation types are 

grasslands and shrublands. The Rolling Sagebrush Steppe subregion is the predominant 

subregion within the Green River Basin, with large areas of the Salt Desert Shrub Basins 

subregion scattered throughout much of the basin. In addition, the Foothill Shrublands and Low 

Mountains subregion occurs in the southern and eastern portions of the basin. This region is 

characterized by isolated, dry mountain ranges and foothill slopes and includes alluvial fans, 

hills, ridges, and valleys. Elevations in foothills range from 5,000 to 7,000 ft, and more than 

9,000 ft in some mountain ranges. Local relief can be up to 800 ft. The average annual 

precipitation is about 14 to 20 in., and the growing season is short to moderate with 75 to 

100 mean annual frost-free days. Fine-textured soils occur at lower elevations and primarily 

support sagebrush steppe and grassland with big sagebrush, rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus sp.), 

prickly pear, bluebunch wheatgrass (Pseudoroegneria spicata), and Idaho fescue (Festuca 

idahoensis), while rocky outcrops support woodlands of Rocky Mountain juniper (Juniperus 

scopulorum), Utah juniper, and mountain mahogany. Higher elevations support Rocky Mountain 

juniper, lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta), limber pine (Pinus flexilis), aspen, Douglas fir, and 

ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) forests. 

 The Washakie Basin lies within the Wyoming Basin ecoregion. The Rolling Sagebrush 

Steppe is the predominant subregion within the Washakie Basin. This subregion is a wide 

semiarid area of rolling plains with hills, mesas, cuestas, and nearly level floodplains and 

terraces. Footslopes, ridges, rolling alluvial fans, and outwash fans occur near the mountains. 

The average annual precipitation is 6 to 16 in., with a moderate growing season with 75 to 

100 mean annual frost-free days. Elevations range from 4,900 to 7,200 ft. Local relief can be up 

to 400 ft. Sagebrush steppe shrubland is the predominant vegetation type, with mixed grass 

prairie predominating in the far eastern portions. The dominant shrub species is Wyoming big 

sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata ssp. wyomingensis). Silver (Artemisia cana) and black sagebrush 

occur in the lowlands, and mountain big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata ssp. vaseyana) occurs at 

higher elevations. Associated species of Wyoming big sagebrush include western wheatgrass 

(Pascopyrum smithii), needle-and-thread, blue grama, Sandberg bluegrass (Poa secunda), 

junegrass (Koeleria macrantha), rabbitbrush, and fringed sage (Artemisia frigida). 

 The sagebrush steppe has been affected by frequent fires and in some areas has been 

replaced by European annual grasses. Smaller areas of the Salt Desert Shrub Basins subregion 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-156 

FIGURE 3.7.2-4 Ecoregions and Oil Shale Basins of Southwestern Wyoming 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-157 

are scattered throughout the Washakie Basin. This arid plains subregion is characterized by 

disjunct playas and sand dunes, nearly level floodplains and terraces, and rolling alluvial fans. 

Elevations range from 5,800 to 7,200 ft. The average annual precipitation is 6 to 10 in., with a 

moderate growing season with 75 to 100 mean annual frost-free days. Soils are more alkaline 

and less permeable than in the Rolling Sagebrush Steppe. Vegetation is sparse, consisting of 

desert shrublands with alkaline-tolerant shrubs and grasses. Shrubs include shadscale, 

greasewood, Gardner saltbush (Atriplex gardneri), bud sage (Picrothamnus desertorum), and big 

sagebrush. Stabilized sand dunes, which have greater moisture, higher permeability, and lower 

alkalinity, support a higher diversity of plant species, primarily alkali cordgrass (Spartina 

gracilis), indian ricegrass, blowout grass (Redfieldia flexuosa), alkali wildrye (Leymus simplex), 

and needle-and-thread. Non-native species, such as Russian thistle (Salsola tragus), cheatgrass, 

and halogeton (Halogeton glomeratus), may become established as a result of grazing pressure. 

 A number of species are endemic to semibarren shale outcrops, generally on soils 

derived from the Green River Formation (Goodrich and Neese 1986; Welsh and Thorne 1979; 

Atwood et al. 1991; UDWR 2006; University of Wyoming 2006). These soils are generally thin, 

dry, and fine textured with abundant white to light tan shale fragments on the surface. These oilshale endemic species are adapted to the xeric and highly basic calcareous shale soils, which in 

some locations can be erosive, and often have a taproot and condensed growth habit. Plant 

communities at these locations can be varied and include open desert shrub, mixed desert shrub, 

or open pinyon-juniper communities (Goodrich and Neese 1986; Welsh and Thorne 1979; 

Atwood et al. 1991; UDWR 2006; University of Wyoming 2006). Many oil-shale endemics have 

extremely limited distributions. For example, tufted twinpod (Physaria condensata) is found 

only in the Green River Basin (University of Wyoming 2006). Others are also known from oil 

shale basins in Colorado or Utah. Rollins’ cat’s-eye (Cryptantha rollinsii), for example, is 

endemic to Green River shale soils in the Washakie, Green River, Piceance, and Uinta Basins. 

These endemic species often occur as small scattered populations. Because of their small 

populations and vulnerability, many oil-shale endemics are federally listed, state-listed, or BLM 

sensitive species (Section 3.7.4). 

 Large areas of the Green River and Washakie Basins lie within the Rolling Sagebrush 

Steppe subregion of the Wyoming Basin ecoregion. Within this subregion, streams and rivers 

with mountain headwaters have a moderate gradient with granite or limestone cobble substrates 

(Chapman et al. 2004). Streams with headwaters in the Wyoming Basin center have a low 

gradient with finer gravel substrates of shales and are more incised. Small streams in the 

subregion are weakly intermittent or ephemeral, with substrates of sand or platy shale. Within 

the Salt Desert Shrub Basins subregion, streams are ephemeral or weakly intermittent; many 

are incised and flow into playas, which are seasonal with high levels of soluble salts 

(Chapman et al. 2004). Substrate is typically fine-textured or platy shale gravels. Within the 

Foothill Shrublands and Low Mountains subregion, streams originate in the nearby Rocky 

Mountains or are spring-fed streams originating on the higher ranges of the basin 

(Chapman et al. 2004). They generally have a steep gradient with riffle/run habitats and plunge 

pools. Streams generally have limestone or granite cobble or boulder substrates. 

In the sand dunes area on the northeastern corner of the Green River Basin, ephemeral 

ponds fed by meltwater flockets are ecologically important wetlands because of their early 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-158 

season production of invertebrates and nesting habitat for waterfowl (BLM 2004d). In the 

northeastern corner of the Green River Basin, seeps and springs occur within the Jack Morrow 

Hills Planning Area (BLM 2004d). 

 Wetlands associated with high levels of soil moisture in typically arid areas support 

herbaceous species such as Baltic rush (Juncus arcticus ssp. littoralis), Nebraska sedge 

(Carexnebrascensis), water sedge (Carex aquatilis), and tufted hairgrass (Deschampsia 

caespitosa), with occasional species along the margin, including mountain iris 

(Iris missouriensis), sandbar willow (Salix interior), and narrowleaf cottonwood (BLM 2008c). 

Areas that are seasonally wet include Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis), tufted hairgrass, 

foxtail barley (Herdeum jubatum), redtop (Agrostis gigantea), northern reedgrass (Calamagrostis 

stricta ssp. inexpansa), slender wheatgrass (Elymus trachycaulus), basin wildrye (Leymus 

cinereus), field horsetail (Equisetum arvense), wood rose (Rosa woodsii), shrubby cinquefoil 

(Dasiphora fruticosa ssp. floribunda), silver sage, basin big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata ssp.

tridentata), greasewood, and willows. Ephemeral washes may support a community of salttolerant herbaceous species, including inland saltgrass and western wheatgrass, along with 

greasewood and basin big sagebrush. Riparian areas often consist of a lower zone of sedges and 

willows, where soil is saturated more frequently, and an upper zone of silver sagebrush with 

basin wildrye, Kentucky bluegrass, streambank wheatgrass (Elymus lanceolatus ssp.

lanceolatus), redtop, Baltic rush, clover (Trifolium sp.), checkermallow (Sidalcea sp.), aster 

(Aster sp.), and, in some areas, cottonwood and willow. 

 Basin big sagebrush is found as a dominant species along valley bottoms, canyons, and 

ephemeral streams. Greasewood shrublands occur along playas, desert lakes, ponds, and desert 

streams, often on terraces above wetter areas of silver sagebrush or basin big sagebrush. 

Associated species typically include shadscale, Gardner saltbush, alkali sagebrush (Artemisia 

arbuscula ssp. longiloba), basin big sagebrush, inland saltgrass, western wheatgrass, alkali 

sacaton (Sporobolus airoides), bottlebrush squirreltail, Sandberg bluegrass, biscuitroot 

(Lomatium sp.), pepperweed (Lepidium sp.), and sea blight (Suaeda moquinii). 

 Wetland and riparian areas generally are herbaceous wetlands, herbaceous riparian areas, 

and shrub-dominated riparian areas. Sedges, rushes, cattails (Typha spp.), and willows dominate 

wetter areas. In addition to margins of streams and bodies of open water, wetlands occur as open 

meadows that collect moisture in winter and spring. Many wetland areas are seasonally dry and 

infrequently inundated. Alkaline conditions can occur in areas of limited drainage. Riparian areas 

along major streams on nonirrigated, nonfederal land support woodlands of plains cottonwood 

(Populus deltoides ssp. monilifern), narrowleaf cottonwood, Fremont cottonwood, Geyer willow 

(Salix geyeriana), sandbar willow, and yellow willow (Salix lutea). Areas of shallow soil along 

the riparian margin or in rocky areas support predominantly herbaceous communities composed 

of riparian woodland understory species such as slender wheatgrass, thickspike wheatgrass 

(Elymus lanceolatus), smooth brome (Bromus inermis), tufted hairgrass, meadow foxtail 

(Alopecurus sp.), timothy (Phleum pratense), mountain iris, horsetail, gooseberry, currant 

(Ribes sp.), buffaloberry (Shepherdia sp.), and basin big sagebrush. Riparian habitats in foothills 

and mountain areas generally have high moisture levels throughout the growing season. The 

dominant species are generally willows with an understory of sedges, rushes, spikerush 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-159 

(Eleocharis sp.), and grasses. Open meadows and marshes support communities composed of 

these understory species. 

 Within the Green River Basin, the Greater Red Creek ACEC, composed of 131,890 acres 

located in the southeastern corner of the basin, is intended to protect unique ecological features, 

including Colorado River cutthroat trout (BLM 1997b). This ACEC includes the watersheds of 

Sage Creek and Currant Creek, which are tributaries of Red Creek. Management objectives 

include improving riparian habitats to achieve proper functioning condition throughout the 

ACEC, and improving watershed condition to improve channel stability, vegetation diversity, 

vegetation abundance, and water quality. The Special Status (Candidate) Plant Species ACEC, 

consisting of 900 acres on 58 sites, a number of which are located in the southwestern corner of 

the Green River Basin, is intended to protect populations of four plant species  Fremont 

County rockcress (Arabis pusilla), precocious milk-vetch (Astragalus proimanthus), mountain 

tansymustard (Descurainia torulosa), and hairy greenthread (Thelesperma pubescens) 

(BLM 1997b). Management objectives include preventing the destruction or loss of the plant 

communities and important habitat supporting the special status species, enhancing or expanding 

such habitat, and providing sufficient protection to the species to prevent their listing as 

threatened or endangered. 

 One location of the Special Status (Candidate) Plant Species ACEC occurs near the 

northwestern boundary of the Washakie Basin. In addition, the Hells Canyon ACEC in Moffat 

County, Colorado, is located approximately 5 km (3 mi) south of the Washakie Basin. 

 In 2009, the WGFD revised its 2001 Strategic Habitat Plan (SHP) to help guide 

collaboration and planning efforts regarding strategies to meet the challenges of habitat 

conservation in the face of forces such as energy development, climate change, invasive species, 

and drought. The 2009 SHP establishes “priority (crucial habitat) areas” and “enhancement 

areas” across Wyoming that are considered crucial for conserving populations of terrestrial and 

aquatic wildlife now and into the future, and areas that should be targeted for improvement over 

the next few years as resources and partnerships allow. Many of these terrestrial and aquatic 

habitat priority and enhancement (and combination) areas overlap the area in Wyoming available 

for application for leasing for oil shale development under one or more of the proposed 

alternatives (see Tables 1, 2, and 3 in text box). 

3.7.2.4 Special Tar Sand Areas 

 A large number of plant communities are present in the STSAs and vary considerably 

according to moisture availability and elevation. Even within individual STSAs, a wide range of 

habitats may occur. Rare plant communities, such as remnant vegetation associations, and rare or 

endemic plant species occur near the STSAs, and potentially within them. The canyonlands area, 

which includes the three southernmost STSAs (San Rafael, Tar Sand Triangle, and White 

Canyon), contains a particularly large number of endemic plant species (BLM 1984b). 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-160 

Table 1 WGFD Strategic Habitat Plan Aquatic Habitat Priority/Enhancement 

Areas That Overlap BLM Allocations for Lands Available in Wyoming for 

Application for Commercial Leasing for Oil Shale Development

Basin 2009 SHP Area Designation 

 

Green River Basin Lower Big Sandy Corridor Enhancement 

Green River Basin Green River–Seedskadee Reach Enhancement 

Green River Basin Green River–Town Reach Enhancement 

Green River Basin Lower Blacks Fork Corridor Enhancement 

Green River Basin Little Mountain Enhancement 

Green River Basin Ringdahl Crucial 

Green River Basin Sage Creek Crucial 

Source: WGFD (2012). 

 

Table 2 WGFD Strategic Habitat Plan Terrestrial Habitat Priority/Enhancement 

Areas That Overlap BLM Allocations for Lands Available in Wyoming for 

Application for Commercial Leasing for Oil Shale Development

Basin 2009 SHP Area Designation 

 

Green River Basin Big Sandy Crucial 

Green River Basin Mesa-Jonah Crucial 

Green River Basin East Labarge Crucial 

Green River Basin Sands Crucial 

Green River Basin Pilot Butte Enhancement 

Green River Basin Fontenelle Crucial 

Green River Basin South Labarge/Siate Creek Enhancement 

Green River/Washakie Basins South Rock Springs Enhancement 

Green River Basin Uinta Crucial 

Green River Basin Uinta/Cedar Mountain Enhancement 

Washakie Basin Sierra Madre Crucial 

Washakie Basin Baggs Enhancement 

Source: WGFD (2012). 

 

 

Table 3 WGFD Strategic Habitat Plan Combination Habitat 

Priority/Enhancement Areas That Overlap BLM Allocations for Lands Available 

in Wyoming for Application for Commercial Leasing for Oil Shale Development

Basin 2009 SHP Area Designation 

 

Green River Basin Green River/Blacks Forks/Hams Fork Crucial 

Green River Basin Flaming Gorge Crucial 

Washakie Basin Red Desert/Bitter Creek Crucial 

Source: WGFD (2012). 

 

 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-161 

 The STSAs lie primarily within the Colorado Plateau ecoregion; however, most of the 

Argyle Canyon STSA and a small portion of the Sunnyside TSA lie within the Wasatch and 

Uinta Mountains ecoregion. 

• The Argyle Canyon STSA is primarily located in the Wasatch Montane Zone 

subregion of the Wasatch and Uinta Mountains ecoregion, with a small 

portion in the Mountain Valleys subregion of that ecoregion. The Escarpments 

subregion of the Colorado Plateau ecoregion intersects a small portion of the 

northeastern corner of the STSA. 

• The Asphalt Ridge STSA is located in the Uinta Basin Floor and North Uinta 

Basin Slopes subregions of the Colorado Plateau ecoregion. 

• The Hill Creek STSA is located entirely in the Semiarid Benchlands and 

Canyonlands subregion of the Colorado Plateau ecoregion. 

• The Pariette STSA is located entirely in the Uinta Basin Floor subregion. 

• The P.R. Spring STSA is located primarily in the Semiarid Benchlands and 

Canyonlands subregion, with a small portion in the Escarpments subregion of 

the Colorado Plateau ecoregion. 

• The Raven Ridge STSA is located entirely in the Uinta Basin Floor subregion. 

• The San Rafael STSA is located entirely in the Semiarid Benchlands and 

Canyonlands subregion. 

• The Sunnyside STSA is located primarily in the Escarpments and Semiarid 

Benchlands and Canyonlands subregions, with the northeastern corner 

intersecting the Uinta Basin Floor subregion. The Wasatch Montane Zone 

crosses the northwestern portion of the STSA. 

• The Tar Sand Triangle STSA is located mostly in the Semiarid Benchlands 

and Canyonlands subregion, with smaller portions in the Arid Canyonlands 

and Sand Deserts subregions. 

• The White Canyon STSA is located mostly in the Semiarid Benchlands and 

Canyonlands subregion, with a smaller portion in the Arid Canyonlands 

subregion. 

 The Colorado Plateau ecoregion includes the following subregions: Semiarid Benchlands 

and Canyonlands, Arid Canyonlands, Escarpments, Uinta Basin Floor, North Uinta Basin Slopes, 

and Sand Deserts. Utah ecoregion descriptions are from Woods et al. (2001). 

 The Semiarid Benchlands and Canyonlands subregion includes all or portions of 

six STSAs, more than any other subregion. It includes pinyon-juniper woodland, with pinyon 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-162 

pine and Utah juniper, on shallow or stony soils, grassland, big sagebrush and black sagebrush 

shrubland, with sage parkland and mountain brush at the higher elevations. Additional species 

include winterfat, Mormon tea, fourwing saltbush, blackbrush, and warm-season grasses such as 

galleta and blue grama. Areas of unvegetated or sparsely vegetated exposed bedrock are 

common. Annual precipitation is generally 8 to 14 in., with 20 to 25 in. at the upper elevations. 

The mean number of frost-free days is mostly 80 to 160, with less than 50 at higher elevations. 

 The Arid Canyonlands subregion contains the inner gorge of the Colorado River and 

tributaries. Annual precipitation is only 5 to 8 in. Plant communities include blackbrush and 

saltbush-greasewood shrublands. Additional species include shadscale, galleta, indian ricegrass, 

fourwing saltbush, blue grama, mat saltbush, sand dropseed, sand sagebrush, and bud sagebrush. 

Blackbrush is common in deep canyons, and tamarisk, an invasive species, forms extensive 

stands in riparian zones in some areas. The mean number of frost-free days is 160 to 220 or 

more, and winters are mild. 

 The Escarpments subregion includes a wide range of habitats and elevation gradients 

with steep slopes. Scrubland, woodland, and Douglas fir forest are the predominant habitat types. 

Douglas fir forest occurs on northern upper elevation slopes. Desert and semidesert grassland 

and shrubland occur at low elevations. Pinyon-juniper woodland is often a dominant habitat on 

shallow soils. Additional habitats include high-elevation forests of Engelmann spruce, subalpine 

fir, Douglas fir, and Arizona pine forest, and mountain mahogany/oak scrub. Annual 

precipitation ranges from 8 to 30 in. The mean number of frost-free days is 40 to 150. 

 The Uinta Basin Floor subregion is arid, with only 5 to 8 in. of annual precipitation. The 

predominant habitat type is saltbush-greasewood shrubsteppe. Additional species present include 

grasses (indian ricegrass, galleta, and needle-and-thread) and shrubs (shadscale, Wyoming big 

sagebrush, four-wing saltbush, winterfat, and black sagebrush). This subregion receives abundant 

streamflows from the adjacent mountains. Common species in riparian areas are cottonwood and 

Russian olive, an invasive species. Irrigation has contributed to salinity levels in the Green River 

and tributaries. The mean number of frost-free days is 115 to 140, with cold winters. 

 The North Uinta Basin Slopes subregion includes numerous perennial streams originating 

from the adjacent mountains. Pinyon-juniper woodland is the most common habitat type in this 

subregion, with some sagebrush steppe. Upper elevations support mountain brush communities. 

Cottonwood, willow, ponderosa pine, and shrubs occur in canyons. Annual precipitation is 8 to 

18 in., and the mean number of frost-free days is 100 to 130. 

 The Sand Deserts subregion is arid with only 5 to 8 in. of annual precipitation. The sandy 

soils have a low water-holding capacity. Vegetation is generally sparse or absent and is typically 

composed of desert or semidesert grasses, desert shrubs, and annual forbs. Galleta-three awn 

(Aristida purpurea) shrubsteppe is the most common habitat type, with saltbush-greasewood 

shrubsteppe and pinyon-juniper woodland also present. Grasses include indian ricegrass, sand 

dropseed, galleta, and three awn; shrubs include blackbrush in southern areas, and sandsage. 

Yucca (Yucca angustissma) is also present. This subregion includes areas of unstabilized sand 

dunes and exposed bedrock. The mean number of frost-free days ranges from 130 to 180. 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-163 

 The Wasatch and Uinta Mountains ecoregion includes the Wasatch Montane Zone and 

Mountain Valleys subregions. The predominant habitat type in the Wasatch Montane Zone 

subregion is Douglas fir forest. Forests of Engelmann spruce-subalpine fir are found mostly to 

the south. Aspen parkland, which includes big sagebrush, snowberry, elderberry, mountain 

grasses, and scattered Douglas fir, also occurs in this subregion. This subregion includes many 

good quality perennial streams. Willow and birch occur along streams. Annual precipitation is 

16 to 50 in. or more, the east side being drier than the west side. The mean number of frost-free 

days ranges from less than 40 to 80, with long, cold winters. 

 The Mountain Valleys subregion is unforested. The predominant habitat type is Great 

Basin sagebrush steppe, with pinyon-juniper woodland also present. Cottonwood, Russian olive, 

and invasive species are found in riparian areas. Annual precipitation is 5 to 24 in. The mean 

number of frost-free days is 70 to 100. 

 A number of species are endemic to the Green River shale barrens, generally on soils of 

the Parachute Creek or Evacuation Creek member of the Green River Formation, as well as the 

Uinta Formation (Goodrich and Neese 1986; Welsh and Thorne 1979; Atwood et al. 1991; 

UDWR 2006; USFWS 2006i). These soils are generally shallow, dry, and fine textured with 

abundant white to light tan shale fragments on the surface. These oil-shale endemic species are 

adapted to the xeric and highly basic calcareous shale soils, which in some locations can be 

erosive, and often have a taproot and condensed growth habit. Plant communities at these 

locations can be varied and include open desert shrub, mixed desert shrub, or open pinyonjuniper communities (Goodrich and Neese 1986; Welsh and Thorne 1979; Atwood et al. 1991; 

UDWR 2006; USFWS 2006i). Occurrences of these endemics are often located within a narrow 

band along the southern margin of the Uinta Basin. Many oil-shale endemics, such as the 

shrubby reed-mustard (Schoenocrambe suffrutescens), have extremely limited distributions, and 

are found only in Utah (UDWR 2006). Others are also known from sites in Colorado or 

Wyoming. A number of these endemic species are expected to occur in STSAs. For example, 

Graham’s beardtongue (Penstemon grahamii) and the White River beardtongue (Penstemon 

scariosus albifluvis) potentially occur in the Hill Creek, Pariette, P.R. Spring, and Raven Ridge 

STSAs. The White River beardtongue may also occur in the Asphalt Ridge STSA. Shrubby reedmustard potentially occurs in the Hill Creek, Pariette, P.R. Spring, and Sunnyside STSAs. These 

endemic species often occur as small scattered populations. Because of their small populations 

and vulnerability, many oil-shale endemics are federally listed, state-listed, or BLM sensitive 

species (Section 3.7.4). Some oil-shale endemics (e.g., dragon milk-vetch [Astragalus lutosus], 

fragrant cryptantha [Cryptantha grahamii], Barneby’s columbine [Aquilegia barnebyi], 

Barneby’s thistle [Cirsium barnebyi], and Barneby’s cryptantha [Cryptantha barnebyi]) have no 

official conservation status (UDWR 2006). Each of these species potentially occurs in one or 

more STSAs. Flowers’ penstemon (Penstemon flowersii), endemic to the Uinta Basin (although 

not endemic to shale soils), is restricted to a small area of Duchesne and neighboring Uintah 

Counties and may occur in the Pariette STSA; it also has no formal conservation status 

(UDWR 2006). 

 A number of existing and potential ACECs intersect with the STSAs. Many of these 

ACECs contain riparian habitats, wetlands, remnant vegetation associations, and/or endemic 

plant species. 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-164 

• Asphalt Ridge STSA is located near the Red MountainDry Fork Complex 

ACEC, which supports two relic vegetation communities. 

• Pariette STSA intersects with Pariette Wetlands ACEC, which includes 

special status and listed plant species and extensive wetlands. 

• P.R. Spring STSA is located adjacent to Cottonwood/Diamond Watershed 

ACEC. 

• Raven Ridge STSA is located near the Raven Ridge ACEC. 

• San Rafael STSA intersects with San Rafael Canyon, San Rafael Reef, which 

includes relict vegetation communities, and I-70 Scenic Highway ACECs, and 

is located near the Muddy Creek ACEC, which has important riparian 

vegetation habitat. 

• Sunnyside STSA intersects with Nine Mile Canyon ACEC and Lears Canyon 

ACEC, with relict plant communities and special status plant species, Nine 

Mile Canyon Expansion, Desolation Canyon, and Range Creek ACECs. 

3.7.3 Wildlife 

 As discussed in Section 3.7.2, the various ecoregions encompassed by the oil shale and 

tar sands study area (i.e., counties within which commercial-scale development may occur) 

include a diversity of plant communities and species which, in turn, provide a wide range of 

habitats that support diverse assemblages of terrestrial wildlife. Table 3.7.3-1 lists the number of 

wildlife species that occur within the oil shale and tar sands study area. The wildlife species that 

may be associated with any particular project would depend on the specific location of the 

project and on the plant communities and habitats present at the site. 

 The Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976 chartered the BLM 

with the responsibility of maintaining or enhancing wildlife habitats that occur on public lands. 

The BLM manages wildlife through resource allocations and objectives described in RMPs. The 

RMPs are designed to balance the conservation of wildlife and other natural resources with the 

needs of the public. The BLM’s Wildlife Management Program maintains and manages wildlife 

habitats to help ensure self-sustaining populations and a natural abundance and diversity of 

wildlife on public lands. In order to provide for the long-term protection of wildlife resources, 

the BLM supports habitat conservation and restoration activities, many funded through 

partnerships with federal, state, and non-governmental organizations. The BLM wildlife habitat 

management program places special emphasis on, but is not limited to, the protection, 

maintenance, and enhancement of (1) crucial habitats for big game, upland game birds, and 

waterfowl; (2) crucial habitats for nongame species of special interest and concern to state or 

other federal agencies; (3) wetland and riparian habitats; (4) existing or potential fisheries 

habitats; and (5) habitat for state or federally listed threatened and/or endangered species. State 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-165 

agencies (i.e., Colorado Division of Wildlife [CDOW16], Utah Division of Wildlife Resources 

[UDWR], and Wyoming Game and Fish Department [WGFD]), in cooperation with the BLM, 

are responsible for managing wildlife species. The USFWS has principal statutory responsibility 

and authority for migratory birds, threatened and endangered species, international resources 

within the continental United States, and all fish and wildlife on lands under USFWS control. 

The USFWS administers the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle 

Protection Act, and is required by the ESA to assist all federal agencies in ensuring that any 

action that those agencies authorize, implement, or fund will not jeopardize the continued 

existence of any federally endangered and/or threatened species. Threatened and endangered 

species are provided in Section 3.7.4. 

 Consumptive and nonconsumptive recreational uses are associated with wildlife within 

BLM-administered lands. These include hunting of big game, small game, upland game birds, 

and fur trapping; wildlife viewing; and antler hunting (BLM 2004a). 

 The following discussions present general descriptions of the wildlife species that may be 

affected by oil shale and tar sands projects on BLM-administered lands within the study area. 

3.7.3.1 Amphibians and Reptiles 

 The number of amphibian (frogs, toads, and salamanders) and reptile (turtles, lizards, and 

snakes) species in the counties within the oil shale and tar sands study area are presented in 

Table 3.7.3-1. Common amphibian species include the tiger salamander (Ambystoma tigrinum), 

Great Basin spadefoot (Spea intermontana), northern leopard frog (Rana pipiens), and 

Woodhouse’s toad (Bufo woodhousii). Reptile species common or widely distributed within the 

study areas include common gartersnake (Thamnophis sirtalis), racer (Coluber constrictor), 

gopher snake (Pituophis catenifer), midget faded rattlesnake (Crotalus oreganus), striped 

whipsnake (Masticophis taeniatus), western terrestrial garter snake (Thamnophis elegans), 

common side-blotched lizard (Uta stansburiana), eastern collared lizard (Crotaphytus collaris), 

eastern fence lizard (Sceloporus undulatus), and short-horned lizard (Phrynosoma douglassii). In 

Colorado, larval tiger salamanders, bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana), snapping turtles (Chelydra

serpentina), and prairie rattlesnakes (Crotalus viridis) are classified as game species, while all 

others are classified as nongame wildlife (CDOW 2001). Threatened, endangered, and protected 

amphibian and reptile species are addressed in Section 3.7.4. 

3.7.3.2 Birds 

 From 168 to 360 species of birds have been reported from the counties within the oil 

shale and tar sands study area (Table 3.7.3-1). The number of species listed for each county, 

particularly Utah, do not imply that all species could be found in a potential oil shale or tar sands 

 

16 Note that on July 1, 2011, Colorado State Parks and the Colorado Division of Wildlife were merged to form 

Colorado Parks and Wildlife. 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-166 

TABLE 3.7.3-1 Number of Wildlife Species Occurring within the Oil 

Shale and Tar Sands Study Area 

State County Amphibians Reptiles Birds Mammals 

 

Colorado Garfield 8 20 274 74 

 Rio Blanco 7 19 279 78 

State Total 18 51 491 130 

 

Utah Carbon 7 22 176 82 

 Duchesne 8 20 235 85 

 Emery 8 21 168 87 

 Garfield 10 27 235 80 

 Grand 9 20 236 79 

 San Juan 10 27 360 85 

 Uintah 6 18 280 88 

 Utah 9 27 325 85 

 Wasatch 9 24 243 71 

 Wayne 10 23 239 79 

State Total 17 57 448 134 

 

Wyoming Lincoln 6 5 252 78 

 Sublette 5 4 233 68 

 Sweetwater 4 8 309 86 

 Uinta 6 5 252 78 

State Total 12 26 434 121 

Sources: CDOW (2011); Colorado Field Ornithologists (2008, 2010, 2011); 

Orabona et al. (2009); UDWR (2011a); Utah Birds (2007a–e, 2010, 2011a–e); 

WGFD (2009). 

development area. For example, some species may be restricted to small areas within the corridor 

of the Green River. 

 Many of the bird species identified from the study area are seasonal residents and exhibit 

seasonal migrations. These include many of the waterfowl, shorebird, raptor, and neotropical 

songbird species. The area where commercial-scale oil shale and tar sands development may 

occur on BLM-administered lands falls primarily within the Central Flyway (Figure 3.7.3-1). 

Birds migrating north from wintering areas to breeding areas use this flyway in the spring, and 

birds migrating southward to wintering areas use it in the fall. The flyway encompasses a broad 

geographic area and includes a number of specific routes that would be an important parameter 

for identifying site-specific concerns related to migratory birds. 

 The Central Flyway includes the Great Plains–Rocky Mountain routes 

(Lincoln et al. 1998). These routes extend from the northwestern Arctic coast southward between 

the Mississippi River and the Rocky Mountains and encompass all or most of Colorado and 

Wyoming and portions of Utah. The flyway is relatively simple; the majority of the birds make 

direct north and south migrations between northern breeding grounds and southern wintering 

areas (Birdnature.com 2001). 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-167 

FIGURE 3.7.3-1 North American Migration Flyways (Coarse dashed lines are major 

flyways, medium dashed lines are principal migratory routes, fine dashed lines 

are merging routes; used with permission of birdnature.com, June 7, 2006.) 

 The following discussion describes groups or species of birds that (1) have key habitats 

within or near the areas that could be developed for oil shale and tar sands, (2) are important to 

humans (e.g., waterfowl and upland game species), (3) are representative of other species that 

share important habitats, and/or (4) receive regulatory protection (e.g., those species protected by 

the Migratory Bird Treaty Act or the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act). Threatened, 

endangered, and protected bird species are addressed in Section 3.7.4. 

3.7.3.2.1 Waterfowl, Wading Birds, and Shorebirds. Waterfowl (ducks, geese, and 

swans), wading birds (herons and cranes), and shorebirds (plovers, sandpipers, and similar birds) 

include bird species that belong to the orders Anseriformes, Charadriformes, Gaviformes, 

Podicipediformes, Pelicaniformes, and Gruiformes. Species from these orders are among the 

more abundant groups of birds from the study area. Many of these species exhibit extensive 

migrations from breeding areas in Alaska and Canada to wintering grounds in Mexico and 

southward (Lincoln et al. 1998). Most are ground-level nesters, and many forage in flocks 

(sometimes relatively large) on the ground or water. Within the study area, migration routes for 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-168 

these birds are often associated with riparian corridors and wetland or lake stopover areas 

(BLM 2008b). 

 Common to abundant waterfowl, wading bird, and shorebird species that occur within the 

oil shale and tar sands study area include Canada goose (Branta canadensis), green-winged teal 

(Anas crecca), mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), northern shoveler (Anas clypeata), gadwall 

(Anas strepera), ring-necked duck (Aythya collaris), great blue heron (Ardea herodias), killdeer 

(Charadrius vociferous), spotted sandpiper (Actitis macularius), and Wilson’s phalarope 

(Phalaropus tricolor) (CDOW 2011; Orabona et al. 2009; UDWR 2011a). Major waterfowl 

species harvested in the study area include mallard and Canada goose. Other species commonly 

harvested include gadwall, American widgeon (Anas americana), teal (Anas spp.), northern 

pintail (Anas acuta), northern shoveler, and snow goose (Chen caerulescens) 

(Raftovich et al. 2011). A hunting season also occurs for sandhill crane (Grus canadensis). 

3.7.3.2.2 Passerines and Other Landbirds. Passerines and other landbirds include 

species that belong to the bird orders Passeriformes, Cuculiformes, Caprimulgiformes, 

Apodiformes, Coraciiformes, and Piciformes. Many of the birds in this group (as well as the 

other bird groups, with the exception of upland game birds) are neotropical migrants that breed 

in North America during spring and early summer and winter in Mexico, the Caribbean, and 

Central and South America. The several hundred species of neotropical migrants include 

songbirds, shorebirds, waterfowl, and some raptors. The BLM is a participant in Partners in 

Flight, a cooperative effort involving federal, state, and local government agencies, philanthropic 

foundations, professional organizations, conservation groups, industry, the academic community, 

and private individuals that focuses on the conservation of landbirds and other bird species that 

require terrestrial habitats. Specific biological objectives and recommendations for landbirds are 

presented in the bird conservation plans for each state (Beidleman 2000 [Colorado]; 

Nicholoff 2003 [Wyoming]; Parrish et al. 2002 [Utah]). 

 The passerines and other landbirds exhibit a wide range of seasonal movements; some 

species are year-round residents in some areas and migratory in other areas, while other species 

migrate hundreds of miles or more (Lincoln et al. 1998). Many of the species utilize riparian 

areas and corridors for nesting and migration purposes (BLM 2008b). Nesting occurs in 

vegetation from near ground level to the upper canopy of trees. Some species, such as thrushes 

and chickadees, are relatively solitary throughout the year; other species, such as swallows and 

blackbirds, may occur in small to large flocks at various times of the year. Foraging may occur in 

flight (e.g., swallows and swifts), in vegetation, or on the ground (e.g., warblers, finches, and 

thrushes). 

 Species common to the area include dusky flycatcher (Empidonax oberholseri), Say’s 

phoebe (Sayornis saya), cliff swallow (Petrochelidon pyrrhonota), canyon wren (Catherpes

mexicanus), Bewick’s wren (Thryomanes bewickii), Mountain bluebird (Sialia currucoides), 

sage thrasher (Oreoscoptes montanus), black-throated gray warbler (Dendroica nigrescens), 

yellow warbler (Dendroica petechia), western tanager (Piranga ludoviciana), black-headed 

grosbeak (Pheucticus melanocephalus), Brewer’s sparrow (Spizella breweri), chipping sparrow 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-169 

(Spizella passerine), Brewer’s blackbird (Euphagus cyanocephalus), and brown-headed cowbird 

(Molothrus ater). 

3.7.3.2.3 Upland Game Birds. The upland game birds include species that belong to the 

orders Galliformes and Columbiformes. Upland game birds that are native to the study area 

include blue grouse (Dendragapus obscurus), ruffed grouse (Bonasa umbellus), greater sagegrouse (Centrocercus urophasianus), and mourning dove (Zenaida macroura). Introduced 

species include ring-necked pheasant (Phasianus colchicus), chukar (Alectoris chukar), gray 

partridge (Perdix perdix), and wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo). All of the upland game bird 

species within the study area are year-round residents. Most concerns over upland game birds in 

the West have focused on the greater sage-grouse because of its dependence on sagebrush. The 

greater sage-grouse, a candidate for listing under the ESA, is discussed in Section 3.7.4. 

3.7.3.2.4 Raptors. The birds of prey include the raptors (hawks, falcons, eagles, kites, 

and osprey), owls, and vultures (hereafter referred to collectively as raptors). Raptors include 

species that belong to the orders Falconiformes, Cathartiformes, and Strigiformes. Many of these 

species represent the top avian predators. Common species in the study area include the turkey 

vulture (Cathartes aura), sharp-shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus), red-tailed hawk (Buteo 

jamaicensis), northern harrier (Circus cyaneus), Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni), American 

kestrel (Falco sparvenus), golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), great horned owl (Bubo

virginianus), and short-eared owl (Asio flammeus). The raptors vary considerably among species 

with regard to their seasonal migrations; some species are nonmigratory, others may be 

migratory in the northern portion of their ranges and nonmigratory in the southern portions, and 

others are migratory throughout their ranges. Species that nest in the study area include the 

golden eagle, prairie falcon (Falco mexicanus), peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus), red-tailed 

hawk, ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis), American kestrel, Coopers hawk (Accipiter cooperii), 

sharp-shinned hawk, northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis), great horned owl, northern saw-whet 

owl (Aegolius acadicus), and burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) (CDOW 2011; 

Orabona et al. 2009; UDWR 2011a). 

 Depending on the species, the raptors consume a variety of prey, including small 

mammals, reptiles, other birds, fishes, invertebrates, and carrion. They typically perch on trees or 

man-made structures that provide a view of the surrounding topography; they may soar for 

extended periods of time at relatively high altitudes. Raptors typically forage from either a perch 

or on the wing (depending on the species). While generally nocturnal, some owl species may be 

active during the day. The other raptor species typically forage during the day. 

3.7.3.3 Mammals 

 The number of mammal species within the counties in the study area range from 68 to 

88 species (Table 3.7.3-1). Feral cats (Felis catus) and dogs (Canis familiaris) also occur in the 

study area. The following discussion emphasizes big game and small mammal species that 

(1) have key habitats within or near the study area that could be developed for oil shale and tar 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-170 

sands, (2) are important to humans (e.g., big game species), and/or (3) are representative of other 

species that share important habitats. Threatened, endangered, and other protected mammal 

species are addressed in Section 3.7.4. 

3.7.3.3.1 Big Game. Big game species within the study area include elk (Cervus

elaphus), mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), pronghorn (Antilocarpra americana), bighorn sheep 

(Ovis canadensis), moose (Alces americanus), American black bear (Ursus americanus), and 

cougar (Felis concolor). The elk and mule deer are generally the most abundant, widely 

distributed, intensely managed, and sought-after big game in the study area (BLM 2006a). Some 

of the big game species make migrations when seasonal changes reduce food availability, when 

movement becomes difficult (e.g., due to snowpack), or where local conditions are not suitable 

for calving or fawning. Established migration corridors for these species provide an important 

transition range between seasonal ranges and provide food for the animals during migration 

(Feeney et al. 2004). Water availability is a major factor affecting the distribution of big game 

species (BLM 2004b). 

Elk. Elk are mostly migratory between their summer and winter ranges (BLM 2008c), 

although some herds do not migrate (i.e., occur within the same general area year-round) 

(UDWR 2010). Summer range occurs at higher elevations. Aspen and conifer woodlands provide 

security and thermal cover, while upland meadows, sagebrush-mixed grass, and mountain shrub 

habitat types are used for forage. Winter range occurs at mid to lower elevations where elk 

forage in sagebrush-mixed grass, big sagebrush-rabbitbrush, and mountain shrub habitat types 

(BLM 2006a). Elk are highly mobile within both summer and winter ranges in order to find the 

best forage conditions. In winter, they will congregate in large herds of 50 to more than 

200 individuals (BLM 2008c). Crucial winter range is considered to be the part of the local elk 

range, where about 90% of the local population is located during an average of 5 winters out of 

10 from the first heavy snowfall to spring greenup (BLM 2008b). Elk calving generally occurs 

in aspen-sagebrush parkland vegetation and habitat zones during late spring and early summer 

(BLM 2008c). Calving areas are mostly located where cover, forage, and water are in close 

proximity (BLM 2008b). Elk require water on all seasonal ranges and generally occur within 

0.5 mi of a water source, although some herds will travel longer distances for water 

(UDWR 2010). Elk are susceptible to chronic wasting disease (CDC 2011). 

Mule Deer. Mule deer occur within most ecosystems within the region but attain their 

highest densities in shrublands characterized by rough, broken terrain with abundant browse 

and cover (CDOW 2011). Some populations of mule deer are resident (e.g., occur in the same 

location throughout the year), but those in mountainous areas are generally migratory between 

their summer and winter ranges. Home range size may vary from about 75 to more than 

590 acres (NatureServe 2011). Summer range occurs at higher elevations that contain aspen and 

conifer and mountain browse vegetative types. Fawning occurs during the spring while the mule 

deer are migrating to their summer range. This normally occurs in aspen-mountain browse 

intermixed vegetation types (BLM 2008c). Mule deer have a high fidelity to specific winter 

ranges where they will congregate within a small area at a high density. Winter range occurs at 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-171 

lower elevations within sagebrush and pinyon-juniper vegetation types. Winter forage is 

primarily sagebrush with true mountain mahogany, fourwing saltbush, and antelope bitterbrush 

also being important. Pinyon-juniper provides emergency forage during severe winters 

(BLM 2008c). Overall, mule deer habitat is characterized by areas of thick brush or trees 

(used for cover) interspersed with small openings (for forage and feeding areas); they do best in 

habitats that are in the early stage of succession (UDWR 2008). 

 Prolonged drought and other factors can limit mule deer populations. Several years of 

drought can limit forage production, which can substantially reduce animal condition and fawn 

production and survival. Severe drought conditions were responsible for declines in the 

population size of mule deer in the 1980s and early 1990s (BLM 2008c). In arid regions, they 

seldom occur more than 1.0 to 1.5 mi from water (BLM 2004b). Mule deer are also susceptible 

to chronic wasting disease. When it is present, up to 3% of a herd population can be affected by 

this disease. Some deer herds in Colorado and Wyoming have experienced significant outbreaks 

of chronic wasting disease (BLM 2008c). 

Pronghorn. Pronghorn inhabit open vegetated areas such as desert, grassland, and 

sagebrush habitats (BLM 2008b). Herd size can commonly exceed 100 individuals, especially 

during winter (BLM 2008c). They consume a variety of forbs, shrubs, and grasses, with shrubs 

being most important in winter (BLM 2008c). Some pronghorn are year-long residents and do 

not have seasonal ranges. Fawning occurs throughout the species range. However, some seasonal 

movement within their range occurs in response to factors such as extreme winter conditions and 

water or forage availability (BLM 2006a, 2008c). Other pronghorn are migratory. Most herds 

range within an area of 5 mi or more in diameter, although the separation between summer and 

winter ranges has been reported to be as much as 99 mi or more (NatureServe 2011). For 

example, in western Wyoming, pronghorn migrate 116 to 258 km (72 to 160 mi) between ranges 

(Sawyer et al. 2005). Severe winters with deep, crusted snow and below-zero temperatures can 

cause high pronghorn mortalities (BLM 2004b). Pronghorn populations have also been adversely 

impacted in some areas by historic range degradation and habitat loss and by periodic drought 

conditions (BLM 2004b, 2008b,c). 

Bighorn Sheep. Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep (Ovis c. canadensis) and desert bighorn 

sheep (O. Canadensis nelsoni) are considered to be year-long residents within their ranges; they 

do not make seasonal migrations like elk and mule deer (BLM 2008c). However, they do make 

vertical migrations in response to increasing abundance of vegetative growth at higher elevations 

in the spring and summer, and when snow starts to accumulate in high-elevation summer ranges 

(NatureServe 2011). Ewes also move to reliable watercourses or sources during the lambing 

season; lambing occurs on steep talus slopes within 1 to 2 mi of water (BLM 2008c). Bighorn 

sheep prefer open vegetation types such as low shrub, grassland, and other treeless areas with 

steep talus and rubble slopes (BLM 2006a). Their diet consists of shrubs, forbs, and grasses 

(BLM 2008c). In the early 1900s, bighorn sheep experienced significant declines because of 

disease, habitat degradation, and hunting (BLM 2008b). Bighorn sheep are very vulnerable to 

viral and bacterial diseases carried by livestock, particularly domestic sheep. Therefore, the BLM 

has adopted specific guidelines regarding domestic sheep grazing in or near bighorn sheep 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-172 

habitat (BLM 2008c). In appropriate habitats, reintroduction efforts, coupled with water and 

vegetation improvements, have been conducted to restore bighorn sheep to their native habitat 

(BLM 2008c). 

Moose. Although moose range widely among habitat types, they are mainly associated 

with boreal forests and riparian areas. Their preferred habitat is generally associated with early 

stages of seral development and shrub growth (BLM 2008b). Moose also will make use of 

dense stands of conifers for shelter in winter and for thermoregulation in summer (UDWR 2009). 

They are primarily browsers upon trees and shrubs such as willow, fir, and quaking aspen; 

grasses, forbs, and aquatic vegetation, however, make up a large portion of the summer diet 

(BLM 2008b). Moose habitat is thought to be improved by annual flooding and habitat 

management techniques such as prescribed burning (BLM 2008b). Moose generally occur singly 

or in small groups. Some moose make short elevational or horizontal migrations between 

summer and winter habitats (NatureServe 2011). In addition to predation, snow accumulation 

may have a controlling effect on moose populations. Habitat degradation resulting from a large 

number of moose can lead to population crashes (NatureServe 2011). 

Cougar. Cougars (also known as mountain lions or puma) inhabit most ecosystems in the 

study area but are most common in the rough, broken terrain of foothills and canyons, often in 

association with montane forests, shrublands, and pinyon-juniper woodlands (BLM 2008b). 

Their annual home range can be more than 560 mi2, although densities are usually not more than 

10 adults/100 mi2 (NatureServe 2011). The mountain lion is generally found where its prey 

species (especially mule deer) are located (BLM 2008c). They also prey upon most other 

mammals (which sometimes include domestic livestock) and some insects, birds, fishes, and 

berries (CDOW 2011). They are active year-round and are hunted on a limited and closely 

monitored basis (BLM 2008c). 

American Black Bear. American black bears are found mostly within forested or brushy 

mountain environments and woody riparian corridors (BLM 2008b). They are omnivorous and 

feed on fruits, insects, small vertebrates, and carrion (CDOW 2011; UDWR 2011b). Breeding 

occurs in June or July; the young are born in January or February (UDWR 2011b). American 

black bears have a period of winter dormancy from November to April (BLM 2008b). The home 

range of the American black bear depends on the area in which it lives and the bear’s gender; its 

range has been reported to be from about 1,250 to nearly 32,000 acres (NatureServe 2011). 

3.7.3.3.2 Small Mammals. Small mammals include small game, furbearers, and 

nongame species. Small game species that commonly occur within the oil shale and tar sands 

study area include black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus), desert cottontail (Sylvilagus

audubonii), mountain cottontail (Sylvilagus nuttallii), snowshoe hare (Lepus americanus), whitetailed jackrabbit (Lepus townsendii), and yellow-bellied marmot (Marmota flaviventris). 

Common furbearers include American badger (Taxidea taxus), American beaver (Castor

canadensis), American marten (Martes americana), bobcat (Lynx rufus), common muskrat 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-173 

(Ondatra zibethicus), coyote (Canis latrans), red fox (Vulpes vulpes), striped skunk (Mephitis

mephitus), and weasels. Nongame species include bats, shrews, mice, voles, chipmunks, and 

other rodent species. 

3.7.4 Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species 

 This section addresses species that are federally or state-listed and are included in one of 

the following categories: 

• Species listed as threatened or endangered, proposed for listing as threatened 

or endangered, or considered a candidate for listing as threatened or 

endangered by the USFWS. These species are protected under the ESA. 

• Species listed as sensitive by the BLM in Colorado, Utah, or Wyoming. 

• Species listed as threatened, endangered, or of special concern by the states of 

Colorado, Utah, or Wyoming. 

 The following definitions apply to species listed under the ESA: 

• Endangered. Any species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range. 

• Threatened. Any species that is likely to become endangered within the 

foreseeable future throughout all or a significant part of its range. 

• Proposed. Any species that has been formally proposed for listing as 

threatened or endangered by the USFWS by notice in the Federal Register. 

• Candidate. Any species for which the USFWS has sufficient information on 

its biological status and threats to propose it for listing as endangered or 

threatened under the ESA, but for which development of a listing regulation is 

precluded by other, higher-priority listing activities. Candidate species receive 

no statutory protection under the ESA, but by definition these species may 

warrant future protection under the ESA. 

• Critical habitat. Specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the 

species at the time it is listed, on which are found physical or biological 

features essential to the conservation of the species and which may require 

special management considerations or protection. Except when designated, 

critical habitat does not include the entire geographical area that can be 

occupied by the threatened or endangered species. 

 On the lands that it administers, the BLM is required under FLPMA to manage plant and 

wildlife species. For species that are listed or proposed for listing under the ESA, the BLM is to 

ensure that its actions do not jeopardize those species or adversely modify or destroy proposed 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-174 

or designated critical habitat. ESA requirements pertinent to BLM activities are addressed in 

BLM Manual 6840—Special Status Species Management (BLM 2008h), which establishes 

Special Status Species policy for plant and animal species and the habitats on which they depend. 

The Special Status Species policy refers not only to species listed under the ESA, but also to 

those designated by the BLM State Director as “sensitive.” BLM Manual 6840 defines a 

sensitive species as a species that could easily become endangered or extinct in the state and for 

which the BLM has the capability to significantly affect the conservation status of the species. 

The list of BLM-designated sensitive species varies from state to state, and the same species can 

be considered sensitive in one state but not in another. 

 The states of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming have identified species that are of special 

concern. In addition, the State of Colorado maintains a list of species that are considered 

threatened or endangered in that state. The BLM’s current policy is to manage candidates for 

federal listing, BLM-designated sensitive species, state-listed species, and state species of special 

concern to prevent future federal listing as threatened or endangered. 

 A total of 246 plant and animal species are either federally (USFWS and BLM) or statelisted (Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming) and occur or could occur in counties within oil shale 

basins or STSAs. These species and their habitats are presented in Table E-1 of Appendix E. 

Table 3.7.4-1 gives the number of these species in different taxonomic groups and according to 

listing category. In the study area counties, 39 species are listed, proposed, or candidates for 

listing by the USFWS under the ESA; 110 species are listed as sensitive by the BLM; 24 are 

listed by the State of Colorado; 28 are listed by the State of Utah; and 143 are listed by the State 

of Wyoming. 

 Table 3.7.4-2 gives the number of species, by listing category, that could occur within oil 

shale basins or STSAs where development could occur. The largest number of species listed or 

candidates for listing by the USFWS under the ESA potentially occurs within STSAs, but this 

reflects the more dispersed nature of these areas and consequently, the larger overall area and 

potential for a wider range of habitats. 

3.7.4.1 Species Listed under the Endangered Species Act 

 There are 39 species that are listed or candidates for listing by the USFWS under the ESA 

and that occur in the counties in which oil shale basins and STSAs under consideration in this 

PEIS are located. The likelihood of occurrence in study areas cannot be fully determined at this 

time because actual project locations and footprints will not be determined until some later date. 

A complete evaluation of listed species in the study areas will be made at that time, before 

leasing or development is approved. Listed species that could occur in the study areas (based on 

National Heritage Program information and state and federal records) are discussed in this 

section and presented in alphabetical order. Basic information is provided on life history, habitat 

needs, and threats to populations. Included is the likelihood of their presence within oil shale 

basins and STSAs (Table 3.7.4-3). 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-175 

TABLE 3.7.4-1 Federally and State-Listed Species According to Taxonomic Group That Occur 

in Counties with the Potential for Oil Shale or Tar Sands Development 

Taxonomic Group 

Status Plants Invertebrates Fish Amphibians Reptiles Birds Mammals Total

 

USFWS 

Endangered 7 0 5 0 0 2 0 14 

Threatened 14 0 0 0 0 1 2 16 

Proposed 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 

Candidate 1 0 0 0 0 3 1 5 

Experimental, 

nonessential 

0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 

Total 22 0 5 0 0 7 4 39 

 

BLM 

Sensitive 49 5 6 6 6 22 16 110 

State of Colorado 

Endangered 0 0 2 1 0 1 4 8 

Threatened 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 4 

Special concern 0 0 2 1 2 8 1 14 

Total 0 0 6 2 2 11 5 26 

 

State of Utah 

Special concern 0 4 1 2 4 7 12 30 

State of Wyoming

Special concern 78 0 6 4 3 30 22 143 

 

Total speciesa 129 5 11 7 9 52 33 246 

a Totals represent the total number of listed species within oil shale basins and STSAs and do not represent 

the sum of row values. Species can be listed by both state and federal governments. 

 3.7.4.1.1 Autumn Buttercup. The autumn buttercup is a perennial herbaceous plant that 

is endemic to the Sevier River Valley in western Garfield County, Utah (UDWR 2006). 

Currently, only two small autumn buttercup populations are known. Its habitat is low, 

herbaceous wet meadow communities on drier peat hummocks, or in open areas of these 

communities; it is found at elevations of about 1,940 to 1,980 m (6,365 to 6,496 ft). 

Sagebrush-dominated plant communities typically are found surrounding wetland communities. 

The presence of freshwater seeps and lack of livestock grazing seem to be important habitat 

elements needed for species survival (NatureServe 2011). 

 The autumn buttercup was listed as federally endangered on July 21, 1989 

(54 FR 20550), and a recovery plan was prepared on September 16, 1991 (USFWS 1991a). The 

recovery plan had a goal of preventing extinction and establishing populations in unoccupied 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-176 

TABLE 3.7.4-2 Federally and State-Listed Species That Occur within Counties with the 

Potential for Oil Shale or Tar Sands Development 

Oil Shale Basins and STSAs 

Status Green River Washakie Piceance Uinta STSAs Totala

 

USFWS 

Endangered 1 0 2 7 11 14 

Threatened 1 0 6 7 10 17 

Proposed 0 0 0 1 1 1 

Candidate 1 1 3 3 5 5 

Experimental, nonessential 1 1 2 1 1 2 

Total 3 2 13 18 28 39 

 

BLM 

Sensitive 55 38 46 42 58 110 

 

State of Colorado 

Endangered 0 0 7 0 0 8 

Threatened 0 0 3 0 0 4 

Special concern 0 0 14 0 0 14 

Total 0 0 24 0 0 26 

 

State of Utah 

Special concern 0 0 0 19 25 30 

 

State of Wyoming 

Special concern 147 107 0 0 0 143 

Total speciesb 139 97 59 59 83 246 

a Totals equal the number of species within listing categories and do not represent the sum of column 

values. Listed species can occur in more than one basin or STSA. 

b Totals represent the total number of listed species within oil shale basins and STSAs and do not 

represent the sum of row values. Species can be listed by both state and federal governments and can 

occur in multiple oil shale basins and STSAs. 

suitable habitat. Criteria for successful recovery included increasing the current population to 

about 1,000 plants on 10 acres, preserving the species under greenhouse conditions, and 

establishing additional populations of at least 20,000 individuals. 

 The Center for Plant Conservation (CPC 2006a) reports that a survey of the only known 

autumn buttercup population in 1982 indicated a total of 400 plants. By 1988, the population had 

dropped to only 10 to 20 individual plants. A 44-acre parcel supporting this population was 

purchased by the Nature Conservancy in 1989 and was named the Sevier Valley Preserve. An 

additional population of about 200 plants was found shortly after the land was purchased 

(CPC 2006a). The Nature Conservancy has fenced the 44-acre parcel to exclude livestock 

grazing in an attempt to protect the autumn buttercup and increase its chances of reproduction. 
TABLE 3.7.4-3 Occurrence of Species Listed or Candidates for Listing under the Endangered Species Act ThCounties with the Potential for Oil Shale or Tar Sands Development Known or Potential Occur

in Oil Shale Basins and ST

Species Scientific Name Listing Statusa Green River Washakie Piceance 

Autumn buttercup Ranunculus aestivalis E – – – 

Barneby reed-mustard Schoenocrambe barnebyi E – – – Barneby ridge-cress Lepidium barnebyanum E – – – Black-footed ferret Mustela nigripes XN × × × Bonytail Gila elegans E – – – California condor Gymnogyps californianus E – – – Canada lynx Lynx canadensis T × – × Clay phacelia Phacelia argillacea E – – – Clay reed-mustard Schoenocrambe argillacea T – – – Colorado hookless cactus Sclerocactus glaucus T – – × Colorado pikeminnow Ptychocheilus lucius E – – × Debeque phacelia Phacelia scopulina var. submutica T – – × Dudley Bluffs bladderpod Lesquerella congesta T – – × Dudley Bluffs twinpod Physaria obcordata T – – × Graham’s beardtongue Penstemon grahamii PT – – – Greater sage-grouse Centrocercus urophasianus C × × × Gunnison prairie dog Cynomys gunnisoni C – – – Gunnison sage-grouse Centrocercus minimus C – – – Humpback chub Gila cypha E – – – Jones cycladenia Cycladenia humilis var. jonesii T – – – 

Kendall Warm Spring dace Rhinichthys osculus thermalis E × – – Last chance townsendia Townsendia aprica T – – – Maguire daisy Erigeron maguirei T – – – Mexican spotted owl Strix occidentalis lucida T – – – Navajo sedge Carex specuicola T – – – Parachute beardtongue Penstemon debilis T – – × Pariette cactus Sclerocactus brevispinus T – – – Razorback sucker Xyrauchen texanus E – – × San Rafael cactus Pediocactus despainii E – – – Shrubby reed-mustard Schoenocrambe suffrutescens E – – – 
TABLE 3.7.4-3 (Cont.) Known or Potential Occur

in Oil Shale Basins and ST

Species Scientific Name Listing Statusa Green River Washakie Piceance 

Southwestern willow flycatcher Empidonax traillii extimus E – – – 

Uinta Basin hookless cactus Sclerocactus wetlandicus T – – – Utah prairie dog Cynomys parvidens T – – – Ute ladies’-tresses Spiranthes diluvialis T – – – Western yellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzus americanus occidentalis C – – – White River beardtongue Penstemon scariosus var. albifluvis C – – × Whooping crane Grus americana XN – – × Winkler cactus Pediocactus winkleri T – – – Wright fishhook cactus Sclerocactus wrightiae E – – – 

a C = candidate; E = endangered; T = threatened; XN = experimental, nonessential population. b A dash = not expected to occur in basin or STSA; × = known or potential occurrence in basin or STSA. 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-179 

By 1990, the total population was estimated to be 200 individuals with 42 plants producing 

flowers (USFWS 1991a). The following year, researchers counted 488 plants, a substantial 

increase over previous years (NatureServe 2011). Many of these plants were discovered in the 

vicinity of the population of 200 counted in 1990. No data were found on population results for 

subsequent years. 

 The autumn buttercup grows to a height of 1 to 2 ft and usually flowers in July and 

August with 6 to 10 yellow flowers per plant (USFWS 1991a). Seed production occurs in late 

July and is completed by early September. 

 Potential threats to the autumn buttercup include livestock grazing on areas suitable for 

introduction of new populations, herbivory by voles and other small mammals, limited habitat 

available, and interspecies competition (NatureServe 2011). The UDWR (2006) also suggests 

that habitat has been altered from presettlement times by water being diverted for irrigation and 

introduction of domestic livestock. 

 Within potential development areas, the autumn buttercup occurs only in a small area of 

the Sevier River Valley in western Garfield County, Utah. This area is located in the 

southeastern portion of Garfield County. There are no known autumn buttercup populations in 

this area of the county or in the Tar Sand Triangle STSA in the extreme northeastern portion of 

the county. No populations of this species are known to occur in potential oil shale development 

areas. 

 3.7.4.1.2 Barneby Reed-Mustard. The Barneby reed-mustard is a perennial herb that is 

endemic to the Colorado Plateau in Emery and Wayne Counties in Utah (UDWR 2006). It occurs 

on steep, north-facing slopes on red, fine-textured soils that are rich in selenium and gypsum, on 

the Moenkopi and Chinle Formations at elevations between 1,460 and 1,985 m (4,790 and 

6,512 ft). The Barneby reed-mustard grows in mixed desert shrub and pinyon-juniper 

communities. Common plants growing in these communities are sagebrush (Artemisia sp.), 

rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus nauseosus), and Mormon tea (Ephedra spp.) (USFWS 1994a). 

 The Barneby reed-mustard was federally listed as endangered on January 14, 1992 

(57 FR 1398). The USFWS prepared a recovery plan that laid out goals for recovery and 

management of this species and two closely related mustard species (USFWS 1994a). 

 Population estimates have varied from about 1,000 individual plants in the two remaining 

populations in 1992 to about 2,000 individuals in 2000 (CPC 2006b). One of the known 

populations is on BLM-administered land near Muddy Creek in the southern portion of the 

San Rafael Swell. The other population is in Capitol Reef National Park in the Fremont River 

drainage west of Fruita (USFWS 1994a). 

 The Barneby reed-mustard grows to heights of 10 to 25 cm (4 to 10 in.) from a branched 

woody base. About 5 to 20 white- or lilac-colored flowers grow on racemes at the end of the 

plant’s leafy stems. Flowers develop in late April through June (UDWR 2006), with seed 

production occurring during this period and continuing into July. 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-180 

 Potential threats to the Barneby reed-mustard include uranium mining activities near the 

population in the San Rafael Swell and foot traffic by park visitors in Capitol Reef National Park 

(USFWS 1994a). The range of the Barneby reed-mustard occurs near the San Rafael STSA. 

 3.7.4.1.3 Barneby Ridge-Cress. The Barneby ridge-cress is a perennial plant that occurs 

in Duchesne County, Utah. The USFWS determined that the entire known population occurs on 

the Uintah and Ouray Reservation of the Ute Indian Tribe (USFWS 1993a). It was first listed as 

endangered on September 28, 1990, and is endangered in its entire range (USFWS 2006c). 

 The Barneby ridge-cress occurs as a series of disjunct populations on marly shale barrens 

of the Uinta Formation on the three ridges at elevations between 1,890 and 1,980 m (6,201 and 

6,496 ft) on both sides of Indian Creek south of the town of Duchesne (USFWS 1993a). It grows 

in isolated stands in desert shrub and pinyon-juniper woodland communities dominated by 

pinyon pine (Pinus edulis) and Utah juniper (Juniperus osteosperma), and in association with 

other species that can tolerate the white shale barrens habitats situated as “islands” within 

unsuitable soil types from other geologic substrates. An estimated 5,000 individuals are known 

to grow in an area of about 200 ha (494 acres) (NatureServe 2011). Flowering occurs in April 

and May, seed formation in late May and June, and seed shed in June and July. 

 Potential threats to the Barneby ridge-cress include a variety of ground-disturbing 

activities such as oil and gas exploration, drilling and production, and OHV use. The USFWS 

determined that the entire population is underlain by petroleum deposits that were being 

developed as of 1993 (USFWS 1993a), although listing the species as endangered has protected 

it by deterring development of petroleum resources in occupied habitats. Within potential 

development areas, the range of the Barneby ridge-cress occurs about 25 km (16 mi) from the 

Pariette STSA and the Uinta Basin. 

 3.7.4.1.4 Black-Footed Ferret. The black-footed ferret is a small, nocturnal member of 

the weasel family. Its historic range and habitat requirements are closely tied to prairie dogs 

(Cynomys spp.); it lives almost exclusively in prairie-dog colonies in open grassland and uses 

prairie-dog burrows as dens and for shelter (USFWS 1998a). The ferrets also hunt prairie dogs, 

which are their principal prey. 

 The primary cause of the black-footed ferret population decline was the reduction in 

prairie dogs during the nineteenth century (USFWS 1998a). Widespread poisoning of prairie 

dogs to improve livestock range, loss of habitat by conversion to agriculture, and disease greatly 

reduced prairie-dog populations (Lockhart et al. 2006). Other threats to black-footed ferrets have 

included predator-control programs and diseases such as canine distemper and plague. 

 When the black-footed ferret was listed as an endangered species, few wild populations 

were known to exist. When the last known wild population disappeared in 1974, the species was 

thought to be extinct (USFWS 1998a). However, a small population was discovered in Wyoming 

in 1981. Subsequent declines in this population prompted capture of the remaining ferrets in 

1986 and 1987. Currently, the only known wild populations are the result of reintroductions in 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-181 

Arizona, Colorado, Montana, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming. Populations in Uintah and 

Duchesne Counties, Utah; Moffat and Rio Blanco Counties, Colorado; and a portion of 

Sweetwater County, Wyoming, are designated as nonessential, experimental populations 

(USFWS 1998a). Designation as nonessential, experimental populations assures that this is 

treated similarly to a species proposed for listing and may be subject to conferencing 

requirements under Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA to ensure that the federal actions will not 

jeopardize the species. 

 3.7.4.1.5 Bonytail. The bonytail is endemic to the Colorado River Basin and was 

historically common to abundant in warmwater reaches of larger rivers of the basin from Mexico 

to Wyoming. The species experienced a dramatic, but poorly documented, decline starting in 

about 1950 (USFWS 2002a). Critical habitat has been designated for the species in portions of 

the Colorado, Green, and Yampa Rivers (USFWS 1994b). 

 Currently, no self-sustaining populations of bonytail are known to exist in the wild, and 

very few individuals have been caught anywhere. Releases of hatchery-reared adults into riverine 

reaches in the Upper Colorado River Basin have resulted in low survival, with no evidence of 

reproduction or recruitment. 

 Bonytail can live up to about 50 years (Rinne et al. 1986). Their habitat requirements are 

poorly understood (USFWS 2002a). On the basis of observations of closely related species, it is 

expected that bonytail in rivers probably spawn in spring over rocky substrates. It has been 

recently hypothesized that flooded bottomlands may provide important bonytail nursery habitat. 

Adult bonytail captured in Cataract, Desolation, and Gray Canyons were sympatric with 

humpback chub in shoreline eddies among emergent boulders and cobble, and adjacent to swift 

current (Valdez 1990). 

 The bonytail could occur only in portions of the Uinta Basin (Green River watershed) and 

in the Asphalt Ridge, Hill Creek, Pariette, Raven Ridge, Sunnyside, Tar Sand Triangle, and 

White Canyon STSAs (Green River and Colorado River watersheds). 

 3.7.4.1.6 California Condor. The California condor is an opportunistic scavenger that 

has been reintroduced into portions of its original range since nearing extinction in the 1970s. 

Prior to settlement by the pioneers in the mid-1800s, its range extended along the entire Pacific 

Coast from British Columbia to Baja California (USFWS 2006a). By the 1940s, the species 

distribution was limited to the coastal mountains of Southern California, with nesting sites 

located mainly in rugged, chaparral-covered mountains. Foraging was mostly in the foothills and 

grasslands of the San Joaquin Valley at that time. The total species size numbered only 22 in 

1982, and in 1985, the USFWS decided to capture all remaining condors for safety and to start a 

captive breeding program (Behrens and Brooks 2000). After a captive breeding program, the first 

condors were released in 1992 in the Sespe Condor Sanctuary managed by the Hopper Mountain 

NWR (USFWS 2006b). At that time the population size was 63 individuals, all in captivity. 

Other reintroductions have taken place in south-central California and the Grand Canyon area of 

northern Arizona. The goal of the California Condor Recovery Plan completed in 1975 by the 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-182 

USFWS and numerous other agencies and societies was to establish two populations each with 

about 150 individuals and a minimum of 15 breeding pairs (Behrens and Brooks 2000). As of 

April 2000, the California condor population had increased to 157, of which 62 were released 

into the wild. The total population is estimated to be about 200 individuals today (National Parks 

Conservation Association 2006). 

 The diet of California condors consists of carcasses of dead animals, including deer, 

cattle, marine mammals, and the remains of field-dressed game (USFWS 2006a). Rock pools are 

important as bathing sites that condors use after feeding. 

 California condors nest in caves or crevices in rock formations, or rarely in cavities of 

giant sequoia trees (Sequoia giganteus). Courtship and breeding occur from December through 

the spring months in California. Incubation by both parents lasts about 56 days. Chicks fledge at 

2 to 3 months of age but they remain near the nest site for another 3 months. First flight occurs at 

about 6 months and juveniles remain with adult condors until the following year. Condors do not 

breed until about 6 years of age (USFWS 2006a). 

 Potential threats to the continued existence of the California condor include injury or 

death from collisions with power lines, human homes being built in mountainous areas occupied 

by the condors, consuming carrion containing pesticide residues, lead poisoning from eating 

carrion containing shot gun pellets, and illegal shooting (Behrens and Brooks 2000; 

USFWS 2006a). The large size of adults [about 10 kg (2022 lb)] and long wingspan (about 9 ft) 

make the condor vulnerable to collisions with power lines, resulting in injury or death from 

electrocution. The range of the California condor includes the Tar Sand Triangle and White 

Canyon STSAs. 

 3.7.4.1.7 Canada Lynx. The Canada lynx is a medium-sized cat. It is federally listed as 

endangered only in the contiguous United States. Critical habitat has not been designated for this 

species. Threats to the Canada lynx include the loss and modification of habitat caused by 

logging, fire suppression, and fragmentation; isolation of suitable habitat; hunting and trapping 

resulting in severe population reductions; and increased human access into occupied habitat 

resulting in increased human disturbance. Competition with, and displacement by, the coyote 

and bobcat can also occur when these species move into occupied Canada lynx habitat 

(USFWS 1997b). The alteration of forests by human activities or the use of motorized vehicles, 

including snowmobiles, in lynx habitat may allow for the movement of coyotes into that habitat 

(USFWS 1998b). 

 The primary habitat of the Canada lynx for denning and shelter in western states is 

mature mesic coniferous forest, primarily composed of spruce and fir, with downed logs and 

windfalls, particularly those at montane and subalpine elevations (USFWS 1997b). Suitable 

denning stands are at least 1 ha (2.5 acres) in size, provide minimal human disturbance, and are 

near foraging habitat (USFWS 1998b). The snowshoe hare (Lepus americanus), the principal 

prey of the Canada lynx, prefers early successional forests with a shrubby understory. Thus, lynx 

depend on a mosaic of mature and early successional forest stands, a landscape habitat structure 

that was typically maintained by forest fires (USFWS 1997b). Lynx populations often rise and 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-183 

fall with those of the snowshoe hare. Other species, including red squirrels, other small 

mammals, and birds, are also taken by lynx. Populations in the contiguous United States have a 

greater reliance on these alternative prey species than northern populations (Ruediger et al. 

2000). Canada lynx in shrub-steppe habitats prey on jackrabbits and ground squirrels. 

 Contiguous forest is important for connectivity between habitat blocks; however, 

dispersal may occur through nonforested habitats that are otherwise unattractive to lynx. Within 

these communities, riparian systems and relatively high ridge systems may be particularly 

important for landscape connectivity (Ruediger et al. 2000). 

 Although Canada lynx still occur in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming, they are extremely 

rare (USFWS 1997b). In Utah, lynx are thought to occur in remote areas of the Uinta Mountains, 

particularly along the Wyoming border (USFWS 1998b). A self-sustaining resident population 

does not likely exist in Utah, but individuals may be present. Lynx habitat in Colorado is located 

within the Southern Rocky Mountains region, which also includes southeastern Wyoming, and is 

separated from the Northern Rocky Mountain region (which includes Utah) by natural barriers 

such as the Wyoming Basin and the Green River (USFWS 2000b). Few if any lynx remained in 

Colorado until reintroductions into the southwestern part of the state began in 1999. 

 The Canada lynx could occur in the Green River, Piceance, and Uinta Basins and in the 

vicinity of the Asphalt Ridge STSA. 

3.7.4.1.8 Clay Phacelia. Clay phacelia is a winter annual forb that is endemic to Spanish 

Fork Canyon, Utah. It is found in fine-textured soil and fragmented shale of the Green River 

Formation. It grows on western- through southeastern-facing barren, precipitous hillsides in 

sparse pinyon-juniper and mountain brush communities, at elevations ranging from 1,840 to 

1,881 m (UDWR 2011a). 

 The Clay phacelia was listed as federally endangered on October 29, 1978 

(43 FR 44810), and a recovery plan was prepared on April 12, 1982 (USFWS 1982a). The goals 

of the recovery plan are to establish a self-sustaining population of 2,000 to 3,000 individuals on 

120 acres of protected habitat, and to possibly establish at least one new population 

(Tilley et al. 2010). 

 Clay phacelia grows to be about 36 cm (14 in) tall and produces blue to violet bell-shaped 

flowers from June to August (Tilley et al. 2010; UDWR 2011a). Germination occurs in late 

summer and early fall (Tilley et al. 2010). 

 The population of Clay phacelia declined from nine to four known plants from 1977 to 

1980, but by 1982 fencing had allowed the population to grow to about 200 individuals 

(CPC 2010). It currently occurs at four known sites; however, there are probably only two 

populations due to the close proximity of the sites (NatureServe 2011). 

 Threats to this population include natural extinction due to small population size and

habitat destruction due to construction activities by the D&G RGW railroad company 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-184 

(NatureServe 2011). The previous threat of grazing was largely eliminated by the construction of 

fencing. 

 The species could occur within or in the vicinity of development areas located in the 

Argyle Canyon STSA. 

3.7.4.1.9 Clay Reed-Mustard. Clay reed-mustard is a perennial herbaceous plant that 

occurs in the Uinta Basin of Uintah County, Utah (UDWR 2006). It grows on clay soils rich in 

gypsum overlain with talus derived from shales and sandstones in the zone of contact between 

the Uinta and Green River geologic formations (USFWS 1994a). The UDWR characterized the 

species as growing on the Evacuation Creek Member of the Green River Formation, on 

substrates consisting of bedrock at the surface, on scree, and on fine-textured soils on northfacing slopes at elevations from about 1,440 to 1,770 m (4,724 to 5,807 ft) (UDWR 2006; 

NatureServe 2011). 

 Clay reed-mustard is known from only three populations and totals about 

6,000 individuals. All populations occur on lands administered by the BLM within an area about 

30 km (19 mi) wide from the west side of the Green River to the east side of Willow Creek in 

southwestern Uintah County (USFWS 1994a). This species occurs in mixed desert shrub 

communities. Flowering occurs from April to May, with seed production in May and June. 

 The clay reed-mustard was listed as threatened on January 14, 1992 (57 FR 1398). 

Subsequently, the USFWS prepared a recovery plan for the clay reed-mustard and two other 

related mustard species in 1994 (USFWS 1994a). One of the top priority goals defined in the 

recovery plan was to conduct inventories of suitable habitat for the clay reed-mustard. No 

additional information on the results of inventories that further describe any new populations or 

abundance data is known at this time. 

 Potential threats to the clay-reed mustard include a variety of ground-disturbing activities, 

such as oil and gas exploration and development (its entire habitat is underlain by oil shale), 

building stone removal, and OHV use (USFWS 1994a). The clay reed-mustard potentially occurs 

in the Uinta Basin and the Asphalt Ridge, Hill Creek, Pariette, P.R. Spring, and Raven Ridge 

STSAs. 

3.7.4.1.10 Colorado Hookless Cactus. The Colorado hookless cactus is one of three 

species of hookless cactus (genus Sclerocactus) that are federally listed as threatened under the 

ESA. This species is endemic to western Colorado, where it is currently believed to occur in the 

following four counties: Delta, Garfield, Mesa, and Montrose. The Colorado hookless cactus 

occurs primarily on alluvial benches (soils deposited by water) along the Colorado and Gunnison 

Rivers and their tributaries. This species generally grows on gravelly or rocky surfaces on river 

terrace deposits and lower mesa slopes. Individuals are more abundant on south-facing slopes. 

Elevations range from 1,400 to 2,000 m (3,900 to 6,000 ft) (USFWS 2010a). 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-185 

 There are two population centers of Colorado hookless cactus: (1) on alluvial river 

terraces of the Gunnison River near Delta, Colorado, to southern Mesa County, Colorado; and 

(2) on alluvial river terraces of the Colorado River and in the Plateau and Roan Creek drainages 

in the vicinity of DeBeque, Colorado. Between these two populations, this species has been 

documented at over 98 element occurrences totaling over 13,300 individuals. The current 

population estimate is over 19,000 plants within a total range of approximately 1,700 mi2

(4,400 km2) (USFWS 2010a). 

 The Colorado hookless has been protected under the ESA since 1979 (44 FR 58868). At 

that time, it was considered part of a single species (Uinta Basin hookless cactus [S. glaucus]). 

On September 15, 2009 (74 FR 47112), the USFWS officially recognized the taxonomic split of 

this species into three distinct species: S. brevispinus (Pariette cactus), S. glaucus (Colorado 

hookless cactus), and S. wetlandicus (Uinta Basin hookless cactus). The Colorado hookless 

cactus is listed uniquely under the ESA. Critical habitat for this species has not been designated. 

 Potential threats to the Colorado hookless cactus include the loss of habitat from energy 

development and agriculture. Oil and gas development is a large factor in the long-term 

conservation of the Colorado hookless cactus. While oil shale and tar sands development may be 

a threat to the Pariette cactus (S. brevispinus) and the Uinta Basin hookless cactus 

(S. wetlandicus), these activities are not likely to be a threat to the Colorado hookless cactus. 

Other activities that may affect the Colorado hookless cactus include gravel mining, off-road 

vehicle use, and the construction or upgrading of utility corridors (USFWS 2010a). 

 3.7.4.1.11 Colorado Pikeminnow. The Colorado pikeminnow is endemic to the 

Colorado River Basin. Colorado pikeminnow persist in the San Juan, Colorado, and Green 

Rivers and their tributaries; however, populations are severely reduced in all but the Green River 

(Platania et al. 1991; Tyus 1991; Osmundson and Burnham 1996). Critical habitat designated for 

Colorado pikeminnow occurs in the upper Colorado, Duchesne, Green, White, Gunnison, and 

Yampa Rivers. In designated river reaches, critical habitat includes both the river and its 

100-year floodplain. 

 Colorado pikeminnow are long-lived fish (up to 40 years) and become sexually mature 

at 5 to 7 years of age (Vanicek and Kramer 1969; Hamman 1981; Tyus 1991). Adults are the 

most widely distributed of the pikeminnow life stages and move to spawning areas in spring. 

Eggs deposited on gravel spawning bars hatch within 5 to 7 days. Once they emerge, larvae 

are swept downstream, sometimes for long distances (Hamman 1981; Haynes et al. 1984; 

Nesler et al. 1988; Bestgen and Williams 1994; Bestgen et al. 1998). Larvae drift to 

relatively low-gradient river reaches where low-velocity, shallow, channel-margin habitats 

(e.g., backwaters) are common, and they remain there throughout the summer (Vanicek and 

Kramer 1969; Tyus and Haines 1991; Muth and Snyder 1995). 

 The Colorado pikeminnow is known to occur in portions of the Uinta Basin (Green, 

Duchesne, and White Rivers), Piceance Basin (White River), and in the vicinity of the Asphalt 

Ridge, Hill Creek, Pariette, Raven Ridge, Sunnyside, Tar Sand Triangle, and White Canyon 

STSAs (Green, San Juan, and Colorado Rivers). 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-186 

3.7.4.1.12 Debeque Phacelia. The Debeque phacelia is a small summer annual that 

grows in only one area of western Colorado. Its distribution is within 10 mi of the town of 

DeBeque, south of South Shale Ridge and southwest of the Roan Plateau in Garfield County, 

Colorado (Center for Native Ecosystems 2006a). This species grows on sparsely vegetated, steep 

slopes in the mud cracks of chocolate brown or gray clay soil. No information was found on the 

time of flowering and seed set for this species. 

 Within its known range, there have been 27 occurrences of Debeque phacelia. Population 

size varies widely from year to year, most likely because of variation in precipitation between 

years. Its association with a very specific geologic substrate and habitat type make it unlikely for 

a range extension to occur (NatureServe 2011). 

 Potential threats to the Debeque phacelia include a variety of ground-disturbing activities, 

such as oil and gas drilling, oil shale development, and OHV use. Because it is an annual species, 

it depends on a healthy production of seeds in the top few centimeters of the soil to survive from 

year to year (Center for Native Ecosystems 2006a). 

 The Debeque phacelia occurs within the Piceance Basin in Garfield County, Colorado. 

 3.7.4.1.13 Dudley Bluffs Bladderpod. The Dudley Bluffs bladderpod is a perennial 

herbaceous plant that occurs in Rio Blanco County, Colorado. It is restricted to white shale 

outcrops of the Green River (Thirteen Mile Creek Tongue) and Uinta Formations, along areas 

exposed through the deepening of stream cuts at elevations of 6,000 to 6,700 ft (CPC 2006c; 

USFWS 1993b), and is found mostly on BLM-administered lands. All known occupied habitat 

is located on lands with oil shale resources. 

 The Dudley Bluffs bladderpod was listed as threatened on February 6, 1990 

(55 FR 4152). The USFWS prepared a recovery plan in 1993 that called for habitat protection 

and inventory work on suitable habitat in the vicinity of known populations (USFWS 1993b). 

 Dudley Bluffs bladderpod is a small herb measuring only about 2 cm (1 in.) across and is 

difficult to see. It produces bright yellow flowers in dense clusters during April and May, with 

semispherical fruits forming in May or June (CPC 2006c). The total species distribution is 

believed to be in five populations on about 50 acres over a range of 10 mi (USFWS 1993b). The 

two largest known populations of about 10,000 individuals each were found growing together at 

the junction of Piceance Creek and Ryan Gulch about 2 mi north of Dudley Bluffs. The Center 

for Plant Conservation notes that there are seven known locations of Dudley Bluffs bladderpod 

in this same 10-mi-long area (CPC 2006c). 

 Potential threats to continued survival of the Dudley Bluffs bladderpod include oil shale 

development and other surface-disturbing activities. This species is so small that it was subjected 

to destruction during the annual monitoring of existing populations to such an extent that the 

USFWS suggested that the schedule and procedures for future monitoring activities by 

researchers be carefully assessed (USFWS 1993b). 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-187 

 The Dudley Bluffs bladderpod is known to occur in the Piceance Basin in Rio Blanco 

County, Colorado. 

 3.7.4.1.14 Dudley Bluffs Twinpod. The Dudley Bluffs twinpod is a small, herbaceous 

perennial that grows on white outcrop and steep slopes along exposed stream cuts. It is restricted 

to the Thirteen Mile Creek Tongue and Parachute Creek Member of the oil shalebearing Green 

River Formation in Rio Blanco County, Colorado (USFWS 1993b). The Dudley Bluffs area also 

supports another federally listed threatened species (Dudley Bluffs bladderpod) in the same 

general area. Remnants of pinyon pine, Utah juniper woodlands, and cold desert shrub plant 

communities occur on mesas and along the slopes where Dudley Bluffs twinpod grows 

(USFWS 1993b; Colorado State Parks 2006b). The Dudley Bluffs area is designated as an 

ACEC. This designation means that the BLM will develop a habitat management plan that gives 

priority consideration to rare plant species (in this case) when considering the impacts of future 

activities approved by the BLM in the ACEC. 

 The USFWS listed the Dudley Bluffs twinpod as threatened on February 6, 1990 

(55 FR 4152), and published a recovery plan in 1993 (USFWS 1993b). The recovery plan laid 

out objectives for future studies and protective measures for the species. The habitat for this 

species is on the surface of oil shale deposits that are suitable for either underground mining or 

surface mining of oil shale. 

 Dudley Bluffs twinpod is named for its distinct heart-shaped fruits. It flowers in May and 

June and produces fruits in June and July. There are five large populations on about 101 ha 

(250 acres) (USFWS 1993b). In total, about 10,000 individual plants occur in 12 sites 2 mi north 

of Dudley Bluffs near the junction of Piceance Creek and Ryan Gulch (CPC 2006d). 

 Potential threats to continued existence of the Dudley Bluffs twinpod include oil shale 

development activities and other surface disturbance (USFWS 1993b). The Dudley Bluffs 

twinpod occurs in the Piceance Basin in Rio Blanco County, Colorado. 

 3.7.4.1.15 Humpback Chub. The humpback chub is endemic to the Colorado River 

Basin. The species occurs primarily in relatively inaccessible canyon areas (Tyus 1998). The 

known historic distribution of the humpback chub includes portions of the main stem of the 

Colorado River and four of its tributaries, the Green, Yampa, White, and Little Colorado Rivers 

(USFWS 1990a). Critical habitat designated for humpback chub includes portions of the upper 

Colorado, Green, White, Gunnison, and Yampa Rivers. 

 Humpback chub complete their entire life cycle in canyons with deep water, swift 

currents, and rocky substrates (USFWS 2002b). Spawning occurs from April to June over cobble 

bars and shoals that are adjacent to low-velocity shoreline eddies as flow decreases from the 

annual spring peak (USFWS 2002b). Emerging humpback chub larvae do not drift long 

distances, but instead remain in the general vicinity of spawning areas (Valdez et al. 1982; 

Robinson et al. 1998; Chart and Lentsch 1999). Young require low-velocity shoreline habitats 

(including eddies and backwaters) that are more prevalent under base-flow conditions. 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-188 

Humpback chubs mature in 2 to 3 years and may live 20 to 30 years (Valdez et al. 1992; 

Hendrickson 1993). 

 The humpback chub occurs in the vicinity of potential development areas in the Uinta 

Basin and the Asphalt Ridge, Hill Creek, Sunnyside, Tar Sand Triangle, and White Canyon 

STSAs. 

 3.7.4.1.16 Jones Cycladenia. The Jones cycladenia is a perennial herb that occurs in the 

canyonlands region of the Colorado Plateau (UDWR 2006). It grows on gypsum-laden soils 

derived from the Summerville, Cutler, and Chinle Formations that are shallow, fine textured, 

and mixed with rock fragments. This species typically is found in mixed desert shrub, 

pinyon-juniper, and Eriogonum-ephedra (wild buckwheat-mormon tea) plant communities at 

elevations from about 1,220 to 2,075 m (4,002 to 6,808 ft). 

 Jones cycladenia is a long-lived perennial that overwinters as belowground rhizomes. It 

grows to heights of 10 to 15 cm (4 to 6 in.) and produces pinkish-rose colored flowers from 

mid-April to early June (CPC 2006e). Seed production does not seem to be as important for 

reproduction as asexual means by sending up new plants from the roots. 

 Potential threats to this species include surface-disturbing activities such as oil and gas 

development activities and OHV use. The Jones cycladenia occurs in Emery, Garfield, Grand, 

and Kane Counties in Utah. It could occur in the vicinity of projects in the Uinta Basin and the 

Hill Creek, Pariette, P.R. Spring, and San Rafael STSAs. 

3.7.4.1.17 Kendall Warm Springs Dace. The Kendall Warm Springs dace is endemic 

to a 984-ft (298-m) stream in Wyoming fed by the Kendall Warm Spring and emptying into the 

Green River. The stream is located on the east bank of the Green River in the northwestern Wind 

River Range, approximately 30 mi (48 km) north of Pinedale, Wyoming (USFWS 2007a; 

WGFD 2010b). 

 The Kendall Warm Springs dace was listed as federally endangered on October 13, 1970 

(35 FR 16047). A recovery plan was created in 1982 (USFWS 1982b) with a goal of maintaining 

a reproducing population at or above existing levels by protecting the Kendall dace and 

158 acres (64 ha) designated as essential habitat in 1977. 

 A single population of the dace exists. This population was estimated to be between 

200,000 and 500,000 individuals in 1937 (NatureServe 2011). Monitoring in 2005 suggested that 

the population had remained relatively stable; however, 2007 data suggested a population 

decline, possibly due to a recent drought (USFWS 2007a). 

 Adults range in size from 0.9 to 2.1 in. (2.3 to 5.3 cm) and are dull olive green in color. 

Adults can be found in the main current of the stream, while fry are most often found in small 

shallow pools in beds of aquatic vegetation (USWFS 2007a). Larval fish are unable to swim in 

the faster stream currents and many are swept over a 13-ft (4-m) waterfall into the Green River 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-189 

(at a rate of 75/day) (Gryska and Hubert 1997). The dace are reproductively active throughout 

the year (Gryska and Hubert 1997). 

 The USFWS identified oil and gas development as the highest threat to the Kendall 

Warm Springs dace population. The management area that contains the Kendall Warm Springs 

dace and the springs’ potential recharge area is predicted to have one of the highest potentials for 

projected oil and gas development, and this type of development could potentially affect the 

stream water quantity and/or quality (USWFS 2007a). Additional threats include contamination 

of water, illegal collection, introduction of exotic fish, and water level lowering 

(NatureServe 2011). 

 This species is endemic to Sublette County, Wyoming, which also contains the Green 

River Oil Shale Basin. However, habitat for this species (Kendall Warm Spring and its outflow) 

is approximately 60 mi (96 km) north of the Green River Basin and it is not likely for the species 

to occur in the vicinity of the development areas located in the Green River Basin. 

 3.7.4.1.18 Last Chance Townsendia. The last chance townsendia is a perennial herb 

that occurs in Emery, Sevier, and Wayne Counties in Utah (UDWR 2006). It grows on barren, 

silty, silty clay, or gravelly clay soils of the Mancos Shale Formation at elevations ranging from 

1,686 to 2,560 m (5,531 to 8,399 ft). Most plants grow on soils derived from a shale lens with a 

fine silty texture and high alkalinities, and are distributed as isolated pockets (USFWS 1993c). 

This species is found in desert shrub and pinyon-juniper communities. 

 The last chance townsendia flowers from April to May, and fruiting occurs in May and 

June (USFWS 1993c). Fifteen populations were known in 1993, each with a range numbering 

from 6 to about 2,000 individuals over an area of about 1 acre. The total population as of 1994 

was estimated at 6,000 individuals. No recent information was available on population numbers 

within the known distribution range. Most of the populations of the last chance townsendia are 

on BLM-administered lands and in Capitol Reef National Park (USFWS 1993c). All known 

populations are in a band less than 5 mi wide and 30 mi long in southwestern Emery County and 

southeastern Sevier County, Utah. 

 The USFWS prepared a recovery plan in 1993 (USFWS 1993c). The last chance 

townsendia was listed as threatened on August 21, 1985 (50 FR 33734). It was given a rating 

with a high degree of threat and low recovery potential. The recovery plan set goals of 

maintaining a documented population of 30,000 individuals and maintaining 20 populations with 

at least 500 individuals each. The plan also called for formal land management designations on 

known populations to ensure the existence of long-term habitat. 

 Potential threats to continued existence of the last chance townsendia include disturbance 

or loss of habitat from mineral and energy development, road construction, and trampling by 

livestock. Future coal mining at the Emery coal field could eliminate populations if protective 

measures are not in place. The last chance townsendia could occur in the vicinity of the 

San Rafael STSA. 

 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-190 

 3.7.4.1.19 Maguire Daisy. The Maguire daisy is a small (up to 5 in. in height) perennial 

herb that occurs on sand- and detritus-weathered surfaces of the Navajo, Wingate, and Chinle 

Sandstone Formations in mountain shrub, Douglas-fir, ponderosa pine, and juniper woodland 

plant communities at elevations of 1,600 to 2,500 m (5,249 to 8,202 ft). Plants grow on slickrock 

crevices, ledges, and bottoms of washes. It is found in locations in Emery, Garfield, and Wayne 

Counties in Utah (UDWR 2006). 

 The Maguire daisy was originally listed as endangered but was downlisted to threatened 

status in 1996 on the basis of DNA evidence of what was thought to be two separate varieties 

(CPC 2006f). At the time of reclassification to threatened, the total population was believed to 

total about 3,000 individuals from 12 locations within the three-county area that composed its 

known distribution. 

 Flowering occurs from mid-June through July. Plants typically have one to five flower 

heads with white to pinkish ray flowers around a yellow center that grows from a branched 

woody base (BLM 2006f). Seed formation likely occurs in July and August, although no specific 

information on the time of seed shed was found. 

 Potential threats to continued existence of the Maguire daisy include loss of habitat and 

genetic viability, trampling by hikers and livestock, OHVs, and mineral and energy exploration 

and development (CPC 2006f). The Maguire daisy could occur in the vicinity of the San Rafael 

STSA. 

 3.7.4.1.20 Mexican Spotted Owl. The Mexican spotted owl occurs from southern 

British Columbia, Canada, to central Mexico. It is a rare permanent resident in the southern and 

eastern parts of Utah on the Colorado Plateau (UDWR 2006). The primary habitat of the spotted 

owl in Utah is steep rocky canyons, although forested areas are also important habitat in Utah 

and elsewhere in the spotted owl’s range (UDWR 2006). The spotted owl is most common in 

closed canopy forests in steep canyons with uneven-aged tree stands with high basal area, with 

an abundance of snags and downed logs. The State of Utah shows the Mexican spotted owl 

distribution to include sizeable portions of San Juan, Wayne, Garfield, Kane, and Iron Counties 

in Utah, as well as a small area of extreme eastern Carbon County and extreme east-central 

Uintah County (UDWR 2006). The latter area is located near the Raven Ridge STSA. In a study 

of Mexican spotted owl home range size in southern Utah, Willey and Van Riper (2007) found 

that the average home range size of spotted owls varied by season. The authors found that during 

the breeding season, the average home range size for each owl was approximately 545 ha; during 

the nonbreeding season, the average home range size was approximately 1,032 ha. 

 The Mexican spotted owl was listed as threatened on March 16, 1993 (58 FR 14248). 

Critical habitat was designated on June 5, 1995 (63 FR 14378), but several court rulings resulted 

in the USFWS removing the critical habitat designation on March 25, 1998 (63 FR 14378). In 

March 2000, the USFWS was ordered by the courts to propose critical habitat; this resulted in 

the current designation, which includes 4.6 million acres in Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, and 

Utah on federal lands (USFWS 2006e). A recovery plan for the Mexican spotted owl was 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-191 

published in December 1995 (USFWS 1995a). At the time of federal listing in 1993, the total 

population of Mexican spotted owls was estimated at 2,100. 

 A total of 2,252,857 acres in five areas of southern Utah were designated as critical 

habitat. Critical habitat within the study areas includes two parcels in Utah designated as CP-14 

and CP-15. Area CP-15 is along the west side of the Green River and includes land north and 

south of the border between Carbon and Emery Counties (USFWS 2006e). Area CP-14 is farther 

south and includes lands on both sides of the Colorado River in portions of San Juan, Wayne, 

and Garfield Counties. Designated critical habitat and a Protected Activity Center (PAC) for the 

Mexican spotted owl also occur within the Tar Sands Triangle STSA. 

 The Mexican spotted owl feeds mainly on rodents but also consumes rabbits, birds, 

reptiles, and insects. Nest sites are in trees (typically those with broken tops), tree trunk cavities, 

and cliffs along canyon walls (BLM 2006f). Breeding takes place in the spring (March), with 

egg-laying in late March or early April. After a 30-day incubation period, hatching occurs and 

fledging takes place in 4 to 5 weeks. The young depend on the adults for food in the summer and 

eventually disperse from the nesting area in the fall (USFWS 2006f). 

 Potential threats to the Mexican spotted owl include habitat loss from logging of old 

growth forest, disturbance of owls by recreational use on federal lands, overgrazing, loss of 

habitat and disturbance of owls from road development within canyons, and habitat loss from 

catastrophic fires. 

 Within potential project areas, the Mexican spotted owl is likely to occur only in southern 

Utah (UDWR 2006). All areas in Colorado where the species occurs and where critical habitat 

has been designated are located well south of development areas (e.g., >160 km [100 mi]). The 

Mexican spotted owl could occur in the vicinity of the Raven Ridge, Tar Sand Triangle, and 

White Canyon STSAs. The range is within 5 km (3 mi) of the Uinta Basin. 

 3.7.4.1.21 Navajo Sedge. The Navajo sedge is a perennial plant that is restricted to 

shady seep pockets or alcoves in hanging garden habitats in Navajo Sandstone at elevations 

ranging from about 1,150 to 1,820 m (1,150 to 5,971 ft) (UDWR 2006). These habitats are 

characteristic of the deep, sheer-walled canyons of the Colorado Plateau. The Navajo sedge is 

known from San Juan and Kane Counties in Utah and on the Navajo Indian Reservation in 

Arizona (Coconino, Navajo, and Apache Counties) (AZGFD 2006; CPC 2006g). 

 The Navajo sedge was federally listed as threatened on May 8, 1985, and critical habitat 

was described also in that listing (50 FR 10370). A recovery plan was approved on 

September 24, 1987. Critical habitat is on the Navajo Indian Reservation in Coconino County; 

the habitat contains three springs near Inscription House Ruins (50 FR 19370). 

 The Navajo sedge grows to a height of 25 to 40 cm (10 to 16 ft) and has grasslike leaves 

that droop downward. Flowers are arranged in spikes, with two to four spikes per stem, and 

develop during late June and July; seeds are produced in July and August (CPC 2006g; 

UDWR 2006). 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-192 

 Potential threats to continued existence of the Navajo sedge include groundwater 

pumping, water diversion projects, and livestock grazing (AZGFD 2006). Sheep grazing and 

groundwater pumping are considered to be the greatest threats to the species in Utah 

(UDWR 2006). 

 The Navajo sedge occurs in San Juan County, Utah, with a very small portion of its range 

in extreme northern Kane County (UDWR 2006); these populations do not occur in the vicinity 

of any potential oil shale or tar sands development. 

3.7.4.1.22 Parachute Beardtongue. The Parachute beardtongue is a perennial 

herbaceous mat-forming species that grows on steep, oil shale outcrop slopes of white shale talus 

at 8,000 to 9,000 ft in elevation on the southern escarpment of the Roan Plateau (USFWS 2006h) 

in Garfield County, Colorado. It is known from six locations that occupy a total of about 

200 acres. The Parachute beardtongue is restricted to the Piceance Basin and is found only in the 

Parachute Creek Member of the Green River Formation. 

 There are only four populations considered viable by the Colorado Rare Plant Technical 

Committee, and three of these are on land owned by an energy company. The other population 

occurs on BLM land (USFWS 2006h). Potential threats to this species include ground-disturbing 

activities, such as oil shale development, recreational use, and natural gas development (Center 

for Native Ecosystems 2006c; NatureServe 2011). The Parachute beardtongue occurs in Garfield 

County, Colorado, in the southern portion of the Piceance Basin. 

3.7.4.1.23 Pariette Cactus. Pariette cactus is endemic to highly saline and alkaline soils 

and is restricted to clay badlands within a single area a few miles across in Duchesne County, 

Utah (NatureServe 2011). It occurs on exposed clay hills and in saltbush and sagebrush flats at 

elevations ranging from 1,400 to 1,500 m in areas that are dominated by Atriplex, 

Chrysothamnus, and Tetradymia species (USFWS 2010b). 

 The Pariette cactus was listed as threatened on September 15, 2009 (74 FR 47117). It was 

previously part of the complex of Sclerocactus glaucus listed as threatened (44 FR 58868) in 

1979, but this complex was split into three distinct species in 2009 and all three species were 

listed as threatened (74 FR 47117). A recovery plan for the Pariette cactus was created on 

April 14, 2010 (USFWS 2010b). 

 The Pariette cactus is a barrel-shaped cactus that ranges from 2.5 to 8 cm tall and 

produces pink bell-shaped flowers and short, barrel-shaped, reddish or reddish grey fruit 

(USFWS 2011). Ribs running along the stems have small, cushion-like areas with hooked spines 

(USFWS 2010b). 

 The total population size of the Pariette cactus was estimated to be around 

12,000 individuals in 2007. These individuals are all part of a single population within a 

29,000 ha area (USFWS 2010b). 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-193 

 Some potential threats to the Pariette cactus include mineral and energy development, 

illegal collection, recreational OHV use, genetic swamping from the more widespread 

S. wetlandicus, and grazing. All of the potential Pariette cactus habitat on BLM lands has been 

leased for oil and gas development (USFWS 2010b). The USFWS has indicated that this species 

could be affected by oil shale and tar sands development activities (USFWS 2010a). The species 

could occur within or in the vicinity of development areas located in the Uinta Basin and the Hill 

Creek, Pariette, P.R. Spring, and Sunnyside STSAs. 

 3.7.4.1.24 Razorback Sucker. The razorback sucker, endemic to the Colorado River 

Basin, was once widely distributed in warmwater reaches of larger rivers of the basin from 

Mexico to Wyoming (Muth et al. 2000). Today, the species is one of the most imperiled fishes in 

the Colorado River Basin and exists naturally as only a few disjunct populations or scattered 

individuals (Minckley et al. 1991; Bestgen et al. 2002). Although the largest riverine population 

is in the middle Green River (Tyus 1987; Modde et al. 1996), the most recent estimate indicates 

that this population has been declining, that it has little or no recruitment, and that only about 

100 individuals remain (Bestgen et al. 2002). The lack of recruitment has been attributed mainly 

to the cumulative effects of habitat loss and modification caused by water and land development 

and predation on early life stages by non-native fishes (Muth et al. 2000). 

 Habitats used by adult razorback suckers include deeper runs, eddies, backwaters, and 

flooded off-channel habitats in spring; runs and pools over submerged sandbars in summer; and 

low-velocity runs, pools, and eddies in winter (Tyus 1987; Osmundson and Kaeding 1989; 

Valdez and Masslich 1989; Tyus and Karp 1990; Modde 1997; Modde and Wick 1997; Modde 

and Irving 1998). Young razorback suckers require nursery environments with quiet, warm, 

shallow water, such as tributary mouths, backwaters, or inundated floodplain habitats 

(Taba et al. 1965; Gutermuth et al. 1994; Modde 1996, 1997; Muth et al. 1998). 

 Razorback suckers make annual spawning runs to specific river areas (Minckley 1973). 

Larval razorback suckers emerge from spawning substrates and are transported downstream into 

off-channel nursery habitats with quiet, warm, shallow water (e.g., tributary mouths, backwaters, 

and inundated floodplain habitats). The most important of these habitats are located in the middle 

Green River within Ouray NWR. Larvae have recently been found in the lower reaches of the 

White River in Utah, approximately 5 mi upstream from the confluence with the Green River. 

This indicates that adults are also present during some periods and that successful reproduction is 

occurring in the White River. 

 The razorback sucker occurs in the vicinity of the Uinta Basin (Duchesne and Green 

Rivers), Piceance Basin (White River), and the Asphalt Ridge, Hill Creek, Pariette, Raven Ridge, 

Sunnyside, Tar Sand Triangle, and White Canyon STSAs (Green and Colorado Rivers). Critical 

habitat designated for razorback sucker occurs in the upper Colorado, Duchesne, Green, and 

White Rivers. In designated river reaches, critical habitat includes both the river and its 100-year 

floodplain. 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-194 

 3.7.4.1.25 San Rafael Cactus. The San Rafael cactus is a perennial species that grows 

on fine-textured soils rich in calcium derived from the Carmel Formation and the Sinbad 

Member of the Moenkopi Formation. It occurs on benches, hilltops, and gentle slopes in open 

pinyon-juniper woodland and mixed desert shrub grassland communities at elevations ranging 

from 1,450 to 2,080 m (4,757 to 6,824 ft) (UDWR 2006). 

 The USFWS listed the San Rafael cactus as endangered on September 16, 1987 

(52 FR 349917). A recovery plan was prepared in 1995 (USFWS 1995b). A major focus of the 

recovery plan was to conduct additional surveys in Emery County, Utah, in an attempt to identify 

new populations. Identifying at least five separate populations that are viable at the population 

level and maintaining these populations were set forth as important goals to realize recovery of 

the species. 

 The San Rafael cactus is extremely small, growing to a height of only about 1.5 to 2.0 in. 

and has a diameter ranging from 1.2 to 3.8 in. (USFWS 1995b). Flowering occurs during April 

and May, and fruiting occurs in May and June. 

 In 1995, the total size of the San Rafael cactus population was estimated to be about 

20,000, located in three separate populations, all within the San Rafael Swell north of the 

San Rafael River in Emery County (USFWS 1995b; BLM 2006f). The estimated population 

had dropped to 6,000 in 1998. 

 Potential threats to the continued existence of the San Rafael cactus include habitat 

destruction from OHVs, trampling by hikers and livestock, oil and gas exploration activities, 

and exploration and mining for gypsum and other minerals (USFWS 1995b). 

 The San Rafael cactus occurs in Emery County, Utah, and a small area in the northern 

extreme of Wayne County (UDWR 2006). There is a potential for the species to be present in 

the vicinity of the San Rafael STSA. 

 3.7.4.1.26 Shrubby Reed-Mustard. Shrubby reed-mustard is a perennial herb that is 

endemic to semibarren white shale layers of the Evacuation Creek Member of the Green River 

Formations in the Uinta Basin of Utah (NatureServe 2011; UDWR 2006). It grows in xeric, thin, 

fine-textured soils that overlay oil shale fragments at elevations ranging from 1,555 to 2,042 m 

(5,101 to 6,699 ft) (UDWR 2006). Plant communities where the shrubby reed-mustard occurs are 

mixed desert shrub and pinyon-juniper woodlands. The primary land use in the range of the 

shrubby reed-mustard is winter sheep grazing. 

 Currently, there are eight known populations totaling about 3,000 individual plants 

(NatureServe 2011). In 1994, the USFWS reported only three known populations 

(USFWS 1994a). The entire range of the shrubby reed-mustard is underlain by oil shale and 

conventional oil and gas deposits. It has a clump-forming growth form and produces yellow 

flowers during May and June (NatureServe 2011). 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-195 

 The shrubby reed-mustard was listed as endangered on October 6, 1987. A recovery plan 

for this species and two closely related mustard species was prepared by the USFWS (1994a). 

Some disagreement remains over the taxonomy of this species; some taxonomists consider it the 

sole member of the genus Glaucocarpum (NatureServe 2011). 

 Potential threats to continued existence of the species include ground-disturbing activities 

such as oil shale development, grazing, habitat destruction from collection of building stone, and 

oil and gas exploration and development (NatureServe 2011). The shrubby reed-mustard could 

occur within or in the vicinity of development areas in the Uinta Basin and the Hill Creek, 

Pariette, P.R. Spring, and Sunnyside STSAs (UDWR 2006). 

 3.7.4.1.27 Southwestern Willow Flycatcher. The southwestern willow flycatcher is 

a small, neotropical migrant bird. Its breeding range includes the southern portion of Utah, 

southwestern Colorado, western Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, southern Nevada, southern 

California, and northwestern Mexico (USFWS 2002d). It depends on riparian vegetation for 

nesting, foraging, and migratory habitat. The southwestern willow flycatcher historically nested 

primarily in willows, with a scattered overstory of cottonwoods. It now also nests in non-native 

tamarisk and Russian olive (USFWS 1997a). Nesting habitat is characterized by dense riparian 

shrubs, about 4 to 7 m (13 to 23 ft) tall, often with a high percentage of canopy cover, sometimes 

with a scattered overstory of cottonwood. Preferred nesting habitat seems to be associated with 

standing water, exposed sand bars, or nearby fluvial marshes. The southwestern willow 

flycatcher forages for insects within and occasionally above riparian vegetation. 

 Once common along rivers of the Southwest, the southwestern willow flycatcher 

population size is estimated to be between 1,200 and 1,300 pairs (USFWS 1997a). Population 

declines have been attributed to the loss, degradation, and fragmentation of its riparian habitat, 

and parasitism by brown-headed cowbirds (Molothrus ater). Suitable riparian habitats tend to be 

rare and widely separated. Impacts on its riparian habitat have resulted from urban, recreational, 

and agricultural development; fires; water diversion and impoundment; channelization; livestock 

grazing; and displacement of native shrubs by exotic species (USFWS 1997a). 

 The southwestern willow flycatcher is known to occur only in portions of the Uinta Basin 

and in the vicinity of the P.R. Spring, San Rafael, Tar Sand Triangle, and White Canyon STSAs. 

Critical habitat has not been designated for this species in the vicinity of potential development 

areas. 

 3.7.4.1.28 Uinta Basin Hookless Cactus. Recently, the USFWS proposed recognition 

of three separate, but related, species that had been collectively referred to as the Uinta Basin 

hookless cactus (72 FR 53211). These species include the Pariette cactus (Sclerocactus 

brevispinus; found only in the Pariette Draw in the central Uinta Basin in Utah), S. wetlandicus

(found in much of the Uinta Basin in Utah; proposed common name Uinta Basin hookless 

cactus), and S. glaucus (endemic to western Colorado; proposed common name Colorado 

hookless cactus). 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-196 

 The Uinta Basin hookless cactus is a perennial species that occurs in Carbon, Duchesne, 

and Uintah Counties in Utah (USFWS 2010c). In Utah it is found growing on river benches, 

valley slopes, and rolling hills along the Duchesne River, Green River, and Mancos Formations. 

The Uinta Basin hookless cactus grows on xeric, fine-textured soils that have cobbles and 

pebbles on the surface at elevations from 1,360 to 2,000 m (4,461 to 6,562 ft) (UDWR 2006) and 

is typically found in salt desert shrub and pinyon-juniper plant communities. It is most abundant 

on south-facing slopes of about 30% grade. Other common plant species in communities where 

the Uinta Basin hookless cactus occurs include shadscale (Atriplex confertifolia), galleta (Hilaria 

jamesii), black sagebrush (Artemisia nova), and Indian rice grass (Stipa hymenoides) 

(USFWS 1990b). 

 The Uinta Basin hookless cactus flowers in April and May; fruiting occurs in May and 

June (USFWS 1990b). Seeds are typically small and are spread by gravity, water flow, and 

insects or birds. Total population numbers in Utah for the Uinta Basin hookless cactus are 

believed to be approximately 30,000 individuals; current population total numbers in Colorado 

are estimated at 10,000 individual plants. 

 Potential threats to the continued existence of this species include ground-disturbing 

activities, such as oil and gas exploration, drilling and removal, oil shale and tar sands mining, 

sand and gravel quarrying, building stone collection and quarrying, OHV use, and road 

construction, as well as parasitism by termite and beetle larvae and moderate grazing by 

livestock resulting in trampling of cactus (USFWS 1990b; NatureServe 2011; UDWR 2006). 

The USFWS has indicated the potential threat to this species from oil shale and tar sands 

development (USFWS 2010c). 

 Within potential development areas, the Uinta Basin hookless cactus occurs mostly in 

Uintah County, Utah, with a smaller portion of the distribution range in eastern Duchesne 

County, south of the Duchesne River, and in southeastern Duchesne County and Carbon County 

along Nine Mile Creek. It occurs in Uintah County along the Green and White Rivers and on the 

Ouray NWR just north of the town of Ouray (USFWS 1990b). On the basis of these 

distributions, the species could occur within or in the vicinity of development areas in the 

Piceance and Uinta Basins and the Asphalt Ridge, Hill Creek, Pariette, P.R. Spring, Raven 

Ridge, and Sunnyside STSAs. 

 3.7.4.1.29 Utah Prairie Dog. The Utah prairie dog occurs in grasslands, level mountain 

valleys, and in areas with deep well-drained soils with low-growing vegetation that allows for 

good visibility. It is one of three prairie dog species found in the state of Utah and occurs in the 

southwestern portion of the state (UDWR 2006). Utah prairie dogs are diurnal herbivores that 

live in colonies and spend much of their time underground. They are inactive or torpid during the 

winter months in severe winter weather (NatureServe 2011). Adults emerge from mid-March to 

early April. Breeding occurs in the spring, and young emerge from the burrows during May and 

early June. Adults are often dormant from mid-July to mid-August and are not often seen above 

ground during this period. Juveniles enter dormancy during October and November. 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-197 

 The Utah prairie dog feeds primarily on grasses and various seeds and flowers of shrubs 

and insects when available (NatureServe 2011). Common plant species consumed include 

alfalfa, leafy aster, European glorybind, and wild buckwheat seeds. Home range size of the 

Utah prairie dog varies from 1.2 to 8.2 ha (3 to 20 acres) and depends on habitat quality 

(NatureServe 2011). 

 The population size of the Utah prairie dog has varied considerably during historic times. 

In 1920, and prior to programs to control the Utah prairie dog, the total population was estimated 

at 95,000. Shooting and poisoning by ranchers, and likely periodic reductions from the plague, 

led to a decrease in population size, which was estimated at about 3,700 by 1984. By the spring 

of 1989, the adult population reached 9,200. The USFWS in its Report to Congress (as cited in 

NatureServe 2011) reported that this size was considered at risk of a population crash from a 

plague outbreak. 

 The Utah prairie dog was first listed as endangered in 1973. In 1984, it was reclassified 

as threatened by the USFWS and is currently the subject of a 5-year status review to determine 

whether listing the species as endangered is warranted. A recovery plan was prepared 

(USFWS 1991b) that described the current extent of existing populations and laid out 

management goals for continued survival of the species. A major goal was to improve the 

chances of long-term survival of the species in the following areas: West Desert in southern 

Beaver and Iron Counties, Paunsaugunt in western Garfield County, eastern Iron County and 

extreme northwestern Kane County, and the Awapa Plateau that extends from Sevier County 

southward through western Wayne and Piute Counties into northern Garfield County. The 

recovery plan also described plans to transplant Utah prairie dogs to unoccupied habitats and 

defined procedures to monitor transplants. 

 The 90-day finding on the petition to reclassify the Utah prairie dog from threatened to 

endangered (USFWS 2007b) acknowledged that impacts on Utah prairie dogs can occur as a 

result of many of the factors listed by the petitioners (e.g., loss of land conversion; livestock 

grazing; roads and OHV use; oil, gas, and mineral development; seismic exploration; and 

sylvatic plague). However, the USFWS determined that the petition did not identify or present 

substantial new information indicating that the level of threats to the species had changed 

significantly since its reclassification to threatened in 1984. The agency further stated that the 

current number of active colonies and the number of Utah prairie dogs counted in 2005 (5,381) 

continues to be within the range of observed variation since 1976. Prairie dog counts have 

historically not included significant populations located on tribal land, where some of the best 

prairie dog habitat is located (Hyde 2011). 

 The Utah prairie dog occurs in Wayne and Garfield Counties in Utah. STSAs in these 

counties are in the northeastern and central portions of Garfield County and in southeastern 

portions of Wayne County. These areas are all east of known populations of the Utah prairie dog, 

on the basis of information presented in the recovery plan (USFWS 1991b). 

 3.7.4.1.30 Ute Ladies’-Tresses. The Ute ladies’-tresses is a perennial orchid. Flowering 

generally occurs from late July through August. Ute ladies’-tresses appears to have a very low 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-198 

reproductive rate. Individuals may require 10 years to reach reproductive maturity and thereafter 

do not flower every year. The percentage of flowering individuals in a population can range from 

23 to 79% (Ward and Naumann 1998). 

 Ute ladies’-tresses typically occurs on sandy or loamy alluvial soils mixed with gravels 

in mesic to very wet meadows along streams and abandoned stream meanders, riparian edges, 

gravel bars, and near springs, seeps, and lakeshores, generally at elevations ranging from 

1,300 to 2,000 m (4,265 to 6,561 ft) (USFWS 1992; NNHP 2001; UDWR 2002; 

NatureServe 2011). Threats to populations of Ute ladies’-tresses include modification of riparian 

habitats by urbanization, stream channelization and other hydrologic changes, conversion of 

lands to agriculture and development, heavy summer livestock grazing, and hay mowing. Most 

populations are small and vulnerable to extirpation by habitat changes or local catastrophic 

events (USFWS 1992). Many appear to be relict populations. Several historic populations in 

Utah and Colorado appear to have been extirpated. 

 The Ute ladies’-tresses is known to occur within Duchesne, Garfield, Uintah, and Wayne 

Counties, Utah, and could, therefore, occur within or in the vicinity of development areas located 

in the Uinta Basin and the Asphalt Ridge, Hill Creek, Pariette, P.R. Spring, and Raven Ridge 

STSAs. 

3.7.4.1.31 Whooping Crane. Whooping cranes are currently listed as endangered except 

where nonessential experimental populations exist. In the United States, the whooping crane 

(Grus americana) was listed as threatened with extinction in 1967 and endangered in 1970 

(USFWS 1967, 1970); both listings were “grandfathered” into the Endangered Species Act of 

1973. Critical habitat for the whooping crane was designated in 1978 (USFWS 1978). Migration 

areas within the United States that are designated as critical habitat include the Platte River 

between Lexington and Denman, Nebraska; Cheyenne Bottoms State Waterfowl Management 

Area and Quivira NWR, Kansas; and Salt Plains NWR, Oklahoma. The Aransas NWR, in Texas, 

and vicinity have been designated by the USFWS as critical wintering grounds for the 

conservation of the species (USFWS 1978). A species recovery plan was finalized in 2007 (CWS 

and USFWS 2007). 

 The whooping crane could only occur as a rare migrant in the study area. It is considered 

extirpated from Wyoming and Utah, and populations west of the Rocky Mountains are 

considered experimental and nonessential (USFWS 1997c). 

 Whooping crane populations declined from about 1,400 in 1860 to a low of 

16 individuals in 1941 (Whooping Crane Conservation Association 2006). Captive breeding, 

reintroductions, and habitat protection by participants in the Whooping Crane Recovery Program 

have enhanced the species’ chances of long-term survival. The number of whooping cranes has 

increased about 4% per year, with about 470 individuals in existence at the end of 2004 

(Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology 2006), including 213 in the wild. An experiment to establish 

a second breeding population in Gray’s Lake NWR in southeastern Idaho was initiated in 1975. 

Whooping crane eggs were transferred to nests of sandhill cranes, which were intended to be 

used as foster parents that would raise the whooping cranes and lead them to the sandhill’s 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-199 

wintering habitat at Bosque del Apache NWR in south-central New Mexico. The experiment was 

unsuccessful because whooping cranes failed to bond with each other but instead paired with 

sandhill cranes. The program was discontinued in 1989 (Cornell Laboratory of 

Ornithology 2006). 

 Subsequent experiments to reintroduce whooping cranes involved the use of ultralight 

aircraft. In 1996, researchers successfully led imprinted sandhill cranes from their summer 

breeding habitat in southern Ontario to wintering grounds in Virginia. Sandhill cranes were used 

in the initial experiments to determine the feasibility of using ultralight aircraft to lead imprinted 

birds to wintering grounds. In 1997, sandhill cranes from Idaho that were imprinted on an 

ultralight aircraft and four whooping cranes flew to the Bosque del Apache NWR. The whooping 

cranes survived the winter and returned on their own to Idaho the following spring (Whooping 

Crane Conservation Association 2006). During their spring and fall migrations, these whooping 

cranes and any offspring could pass over oil shale and STSA development areas of eastern Utah 

and western Colorado. 

 Most of the breeding habitat for the whooping crane is located in the Wood Buffalo 

National Park and areas immediately adjacent to the park boundaries in the Northwest Territories 

of Canada. Whooping cranes are known to start nesting, defined as laying eggs, as early as 3 

years of age, although the average age of first egg-laying is 5 years. Experienced pairs arrive at 

WBNP in late April and begin nest construction in marshes. Egg-laying occurs from late April to 

mid-May and incubation varies from 29 to 31 days. In 25 years of clutch size data gathered 

between 1966 and 1991, the typical clutch contained 2 eggs (90.8 percent of 514 clutches 

observed), and 1 egg was found in 43 clutches (8.6 percent). Breeding territories are usually 

more than 0.6 mi (1 km) apart. Banding studies showed that pairs nest in the same territories year 

after year; several pairs were observed using the same areas for 22 consecutive years. Activities 

of breeding pairs, family groups, and chicks occur within the same territories until the chicks are 

a few months old. Immature cranes typically stay near adult pairs near the territory margins. 

Nesting territories vary in size with an average size of 2.5 mi2 (4.1 km2). Whooping cranes will 

re-nest if eggs are lost or destroyed during the first half of the incubation period. Research has 

shown that typically only one of the two hatched chicks are fledged, and fewer than 10% of 

fledged pairs reach Aransas NWR at the end of their initial migration (CWS and USFWS 2007). 

 Grain fields, shallow lakes, and saltwater marshes compose the typical winter habitat. 

Grain fields, mud flats around reservoirs, and marshes are also important habitats during 

stopovers in the spring and fall migrations. Whooping cranes consume a variety of plants and 

animals, including mollusks, crustaceans, insects, fish, frogs, and waste grain in agricultural 

fields (Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology 2006). 

 Migration of whooping cranes begins in late March as individual birds and flocks depart 

the Texas coastal area. Most cranes arrive at the Wood Buffalo National Park by mid-April and 

initiate breeding activity between that time and early May (CWS and USFWS 2007). Recent 

whooping crane observations during the spring of 2008 were summarized by Martha Tacha of 

the USFWS, Grand Island, Nebraska (Stehn 2008). Tacha reported that the winter flock was 

composed of 266 cranes and that the first individuals observed north of Aransas NWR were in 

Kansas on March 25. 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-200 

 Potential threats to the continued existence of the whooping crane are predation, 

collisions with power lines, and shooting by hunters who mistakenly identify them as sandhill 

cranes, which can be legally hunted in some states. A concerted effort is being made by the 

International Whooping Crane Recovery Team to establish new breeding populations. 

 Migrating whooping cranes appear to avoid areas near human residences and prefer areas 

with good visibility. Austin and Richert (2001) found that most locations where whooping cranes 

have been observed in Nebraska were more than half a mile from any human structures or 

developments. Most were more than a third of a mile from the nearest power or phone lines, and 

about half of all the roost sites and two-thirds of the foraging sites had unobstructed visibility for 

more than a quarter mile and were associated with river widths greater than 700 ft. Visibility and 

adequate distance from human activity may be important whooping crane requirements during 

the spring and fall migration periods. They also need access to wetlands for both foraging and 

nocturnal roosting; individuals prefer to roost in shallow water, well away from heavy shoreline 

or island vegetation. 

 Within the study area, the whooping crane could only occur as a rare migrant during the 

spring and fall migration periods. No breeding populations are known to occur in the study area. 

3.7.4.1.32 Winkler Cactus. The Winkler cactus is a small cactus that grows on finetextured, mildly alkaline soils derived primarily from siltstones and shales of the Dakota 

Formation and from the Brushy Basin Member of the Morrison Formation (BLM 2006f; 

UDWR 2006). It occurs on benches, hill tops, and gentle slopes (most commonly on 

south-facing slopes) on barren areas in salt desert shrub communities at elevations of 1,450 to 

2,010 m (4,757 to 6,594 ft). 

 The Winkler cactus was listed as threatened on August 20, 1998 (161 FR 44587). The 

recovery plan for this species was published together with a related species, the San Rafael 

cactus (USFWS 1995b). In 1998, the USFWS estimated the total size of the Winkler cactus 

population at 20,000 individuals in four populations in Wayne and Emery Counties, Utah. Three 

of the four populations are distributed in an arc that extends from Notom in central Wayne 

County to the vicinity of Last Chance Creek in southwestern Emery County, Utah. The fourth 

population is located near Ferron, Utah, in western Emery County. Most populations occur on 

scattered sites along an area about 36 mi long and 0.3 mi wide. About two-thirds of the 

populations occur on BLM-administered land, and the remaining populations occur on Capitol 

Reef National Park. Its distribution range converges with that of the San Rafael cactus in Emery 

County (63 FR 44587). 

 Flowering of the Winkler cactus occurs from May to June; fruit formation occurs in June 

and July. Late winter and spring moisture conditions and temperature determine the actual time 

of flowering and fruit production in any given year. 

 Potential threats to the Winkler cactus include illegal collecting and loss of habitat or 

damage to individuals from trampling by hikers, mining activities, and oil and gas development 

(USFWS 1995b; BLM 2006f). Within the study area, the range of the Winkler cactus occurs 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-201 

about 10 km (6 mi) to the west of the San Rafael STSA in central Emery County. The population 

in Wayne County is located in the central portion of the county and about 70 km (43 mi) to the 

west of the Tar Sand Triangle STSA located in the southeastern part of the county 

(UDWR 2006). 

 3.7.4.1.33 Wright Fishhook Cactus. The Wright fishhook cactus occurs in portions of 

Emery, Sevier, and Wayne Counties, Utah (UDWR 2006). It is found growing on soils that range 

from clays to sandy silts to fine sands, typically on sites with well-developed biological soil 

crusts. This cactus grows in scattered pinyon-juniper and desert shrub plant communities at 

elevations ranging from 1,305 to 1,963 m (4,281 to 6,440 ft). The Wright fishhook cactus grows 

to heights of 6 to 12 cm (2 to 5 in.) and produces pink to white flowers in late April and May 

(BLM 2006f). Fruiting occurs in June and seed shed is in July. 

 Wright fishhook cactus was listed as endangered on October 11, 1979, and a recovery 

plan was published in 1985. The total population is estimated at fewer than 3,000 individuals on 

the basis of recent surveys (NatureServe 2011). 

 Potential threats to the Wright fishhook cactus include oil, coal, and gas exploration; 

OHV traffic; trampling of plants by livestock; road construction and maintenance; collection; 

and infestation by cactus-borer beetle larvae (CPC 2006h; NatureServe 2011). 

 The Wright fishhook cactus is known from Wayne County, southwestern Emery County, 

and southeastern Sevier County in Utah (UDWR 2006). The species occurs within the vicinity of 

the San Rafael and Tar Sand Triangle STSAs. 

3.7.4.2 Species That Are Proposed for Listing under the Endangered Species Act 

 Species that are proposed for listing as threatened or endangered under the ESA are 

presented in this section. Their occurrence within oil shale basins and STSAs is presented in 

Table 3.7.4-3. 

3.7.4.2.1 Graham’s Beardtongue. The Graham’s beardtongue is a perennial herbaceous 

plant that occurs in small populations along a narrow band (approximately 80 mi long by 5 mi 

wide) from Raven Ridge, west of Rangely, in Rio Blanco County, Colorado, westward to a point 

where Carbon, Duchesne, and Uintah Counties meet in Utah’s Uinta Basin (USFWS 2006d). 

Typical habitat consists of exposed raw shale knolls and slopes derived from the Parachute Creek 

and Evacuation Creek Members of the Green River Formation. Most populations occur on the 

surface of the oil shale Mahogany ledge (71 FR 19158). 

 Graham’s beardtongue has one to three stems that rise from a taproot and grow to a 

height of 7 to 18 cm (3 to 7 in.). Plants have leathery leaves and large, light- to deep-colored 

tubular lavender flowers that develop in late May and early June. The UDWR (2006) describes 

Graham’s beardtongue sites occurring at elevations ranging from 1,430 to 2,600 m (4,692 to 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-202 

8,530 ft) in pinyon-juniper and desert shrub plant communities. The Center for Native 

Ecosystems (2006b) reported in November 2003 that, of the 36 known sites of Graham’s 

beardtongue, one-fourth were composed of fewer than 10 plants. 

 The USFWS published a proposed rule to determine whether Graham’s beardtongue 

should be listed as threatened under the ESA (71 FR 3158) and to designate critical habitat for 

the species. The USFWS withdrew the proposed rule on December 19, 2006 (71 FR 76023), 

stating that listing is not warranted because threats to the species are not significant and are not 

likely to threaten or endanger the species in the foreseeable future. This decision, at least in part, 

was based on existing BLM policies, land use planning, and on-the-ground protective measures 

provided to the USFWS during the public comment period on the proposed rule. The proposed 

rule to list the Graham’s beardtongue was reinstated based on court ruling. 

 Potential threats to this species include oil and gas exploration (both drilling and field 

development), tar sands and oil shale mining, OHV use, livestock and wildlife grazing, and 

overutilization for horticultural purposes. The Graham’s beardtongue could occur in the Uinta 

Basin and in the Hill Creek, Pariette, P.R. Spring, and Raven Ridge, and Sunnyside STSAs. 

3.7.4.3 Species That Are Candidates for Listing under the Endangered Species Act 

 Species that are candidates for listing as threatened or endangered under the ESA are 

presented in this section. Their occurrence within oil shale basins and STSAs is presented in 

Table 3.7.4-3. 

3.7.4.3.1 Greater Sage-Grouse. The greater sage-grouse became a candidate for federal 

listing on March 23, 2010 (75 FR 13910). The listing of this species was determined to be 

warranted but was precluded by higher-priority listing actions. The USFWS assigned a listing 

priority number of 8 to this species because threats have a moderate to low magnitude, and are 

imminent. 

 The historic range of the greater sage-grouse included Washington, Oregon, California, 

Nevada, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, South Dakota, North Dakota, Kansas, 

Oklahoma, Nebraska, New Mexico, Arizona, and the Canadian provinces of British Columbia, 

Alberta, and Saskatchewan. 1,200,483 km2 of potential sage-grouse habitat existed before 1800 

(75 FR 13910). Greater sage-grouse currently occupy only about 56% (668,412 km2) of the 

habitat that was available to them before the arrival of European settlers (BLM 2010b, 

75 FR 13910) and have disappeared from Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Arizona, 

British Columbia, and Saskatchewan (USFWS 2010b). The total population size was estimated 

to be around 536,000 individuals in 2010 (NatureServe 2011). 

 The greater sage-grouse is a colonial breeder that mates in April (UDWR 2011a). 

Migration distances of up to 161 km have been recorded, but birds in some locations do not 

migrate at all (75 FR 13910). It requires various species of sagebrush throughout its lifecycle for 

nesting, food, and shelter (75 FR 13910). It can be found in sagebrush plains, foothills, and 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-203 

mountain valleys (UDWR 2011a). Young birds will eat grasshoppers, beetles, and ants, but adult 

greater sage-grouse will mainly consume sagebrush (BLM 2011b). 

 The main threats to greater sage-grouse are predation, wildfires, invasive weeds, 

agriculture, urban expansion, and energy development (BLM 2011b). Oil shale and tar sands are 

predicted for increased development in the sage-grouse range and this development would 

involve removal of habitat and could contribute to future population declines (75 FR 13910). The 

species could occur within or in the vicinity of development areas located in the Green River, 

Piceance, Uinta, and Washakie Basins and the Argyle Canyon, Asphalt Ridge, Hill Creek, 

Pariette, P.R. Spring, Raven Ridge, and Sunnyside STSAs. 

 The BLM recognizes the challenge of authorizing various human land uses (including 

energy development) on public lands and protecting the greater sage-grouse. The BLM has 

participated in the organization of conservation committees and developed Instructional 

Memoranda (IM) and other reports to outline the necessary steps that could be necessary for 

energy development that would also work towards conservation goals. These IMs and other 

sage-grouse policy information are provided in Appendix K. Local sage grouse working groups 

have been formed across the region to support activities that improve sage grouse habitat. 

Executive Order (E.O.) 2011-5 for the State of Wyoming (Wyoming Governor’s Office 2011) 

outlined the identification and protection of “core population areas” for the greater sage-grouse 

within the State of Wyoming. See Appendix K for additional information on Wyoming 

E.O. 2011-5. Similarly, Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) identified Preliminary Priority 

Habitat (PPH) for the greater sage-grouse. The State of Utah maintains a database of occupied 

habitat areas for the greater sage-grouse. These occupied habitat areas were determined by 

UDWR field biologists in 2010. BLM is currently working with the CPW and UDWR to refine 

the delineation of priority habitats in these states. As discussed in Section 2.3.3.1, it is important 

to note that unlike the states of Colorado and Wyoming, the State of Utah has not yet completed 

the process of identifying core or priority greater sage-grouse habitat. The best available data to 

represent greater sage-grouse habitat in Utah is the UDWR occupied habitat. Greater sage-grouse 

core or priority areas considered for this PEIS are summarized in the following text box. 

3.7.4.3.2 Gunnison Sage-Grouse. The Gunnison sage-grouse became a candidate for 

federal listing on September 28, 2010 (75 FR 59804). The listing of this species was determined 

to be warranted but was precluded by higher-priority listing actions. The USFWS assigned a 

listing priority number of 2 to this species because threats have a high magnitude, and are 

imminent. 

 Gunnison sage-grouse historically occupied 21,370 mi2 throughout southwestern 

Colorado, northwestern New Mexico, northeastern Arizona, and southeastern Utah 

(71 FR 19954). Currently, only seven widely scattered and isolated populations occur in 

Colorado and Utah, occupying 1,511 mi2 in Gunnison Basin, San Miguel Basin, Monticello–

Dove Creek, Pĩnon Mesa, Crawford, Cerro Summit–Cimarron–Sims Mesa, and Poncha Pass 

(75 FR 59804). Gunnison sage-grouse now occupy about 10% of the habitat that existed before 

the arrival of European settlers (BLM 2010b). The breeding population size was estimated to be 

fewer than 4,000 individuals in 2000 with the largest population (2,000–3,000) occurring 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-204 

primarily in Gunnison and Saguache Counties, 

Colorado. The remaining six populations have 

fewer than 300 breeding individuals 

(NatureServe 2011). 

 The Gunnison sage-grouse is a colonial 

breeder that mates in the spring 

(UDWR 2011a). It relies heavily on sagebrush 

for shelter and food throughout the year. Forbs 

and insects are eaten during the summer and 

early fall, but its diet consists entirely of 

sagebrush during the winter (71 FR 19954). 

 The main threat to the Gunnison sagegrouse, in addition to predation, is the 

fragmentation and degradation of sagebrush 

habitats due to conversion to cropland, energy 

development, and urban development (NatureServe 2011). All Gunnison sage-grouse habitat was 

classified by the BLM as areas for gas and oil potential (75 FR 59804). The species could occur 

within or in the vicinity of development areas located in the P.R. Spring and White Canyon 

STSAs. Other threats include fencing (increases mortality due to collision and increased perch 

sites for nest predators), fires (increases weeds and degrades suitable habitat), and domestic 

grazing (changes plant communities and soils) (75 FR 59804). 

3.7.4.3.3 Gunnison’s Prairie Dog. The Gunnison’s prairie dog is a candidate for listing 

in that portion of its range in central and south-central Colorado and north-central New Mexico. 

The USFWS recently published a 12-month finding for the Gunnison’s prairie dog in which it 

determined that the species is not threatened or endangered throughout all of its range, but that 

the portion of the current range of the species located in central and south-central Colorado and 

north-central New Mexico represents a significant portion of the range where the Gunnison’s 

prairie dog is warranted for listing under the ESA (USFWS 2008). Although listing was 

precluded by higher priority actions, the USFWS assigned a listing priority number of 2 to this 

species because threats have a high magnitude, and are imminent. 

 The Gunnison’s prairie dog is a colonial species in the family Sciuridae and historically 

occurred in large colonies over large areas (USFWS 2008). Gunnison’s prairie dog habitat 

includes level to gently sloping grasslands and semidesert and montane shrublands, at elevations 

from 6,000 to 12,000 ft (1,830 to 3,660 m). Foods include grasses, forbs, sedges, and shrubs. 

 The current distribution of the species includes northeastern Arizona; central, southcentral, and southwestern Colorado; north-central and northwestern New Mexico; and extreme 

southeastern Utah (USFWS 2008). Between 1916 and the present, habitat occupied by 

Gunnison’s prairie dogs throughout its range declined from approximately 24,000,000 acres 

(9,700,000 ha) to between 340,000 and 500,000 acres (136,000 and 200,000 ha). This represents 

a rangewide decline of greater than 95% (USFWS 2008). Gunnison’s prairie dogs occur in two 

Greater Sage-Grouse Core/Priority Habitat 

Data Sources and Definitions

1. Colorado – Preliminary Priority Habitat 

(PPH); areas of high probability of greater 

sage-grouse use (summer, winter, brooding) 

within a 4 mi (6.5 km) buffer around leks that 

have been active within the past 10 years. 

Source: CPW (2012). 

2. Utah – Greater sage-grouse occupied habitat 

areas in Utah as determined by UDWR field 

biologists in 2011. Source: UDWR (2012). 

3. Wyoming – Greater sage-grouse core areas 

defined by the Governor’s Implementation 

Team. Version 3 core areas were approved by 

the governor of Wyoming on June 29, 2010. 

Source: WGFD (2010c). 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-205 

separate range areas—higher elevations in the northeastern part of the range (montane areas) and 

lower elevations elsewhere (prairie areas). 

 Gunnison’s prairie dogs are affected by a variety of anthropogenic and ecological factors. 

In evaluating these factors, the USFWS determined that the destruction and modification of 

Gunnison’s prairie dog’s habitat or range currently are not significant threats. Agriculture, 

urbanization, roads, and oil and gas development each currently affect a small percentage of 

Gunnison’s prairie dog habitat. Effects of livestock grazing, while widespread, have not resulted 

in measurable population declines. 

 Plague has a significant effect on Gunnison’s prairie dog populations (USFWS 2008). 

Periodic epizootic plague events generally kill more than 99% of an affected population. 

Whether populations recover from these events depends on the availability of other populations 

to recolonize affected areas and the frequency of outbreaks. Populations in the more mesic 

montane areas of the species’ range appear to have been widely and severely affected by plague 

(USFWS 2008). Large populations have been repeatedly affected by plague and have shown no 

substantial recovery over long periods of time. This has left smaller, more scattered populations 

throughout the montane range portion. Evidence shows that many of the prairie populations 

recover more rapidly from plague epizootics, probably because of the availability of nearby 

colonizers. 

 On the basis of the map presented in USFWS (2008), the Gunnison’s prairie dog range is 

outside of the areas being considered for leasing for commercial oil shale and tar sands 

development. 

 3.7.4.3.4 Western Yellow-Billed Cuckoo. The western yellow-billed cuckoo became a 

candidate for federal listing on July 25, 2001 (USFWS 2001). The listing of this species as 

endangered was determined to be warranted but was precluded by higher-priority listing actions. 

The yellow-billed cuckoo was historically widespread and locally common in portions of its 

range, but was generally uncommon to rare in the study area (USFWS 2000a, 2001). 

 The western yellow-billed cuckoo is a neotropical migrant bird. It depends on large 

blocks of intact riparian habitat for nesting, especially woodlands of cottonwoods and willows, 

with a dense understory of shrubs (USFWS 2001). It is mostly insectivorous, with cicadas, 

katydids, and caterpillars forming the bulk of its diet. 

 The western yellow-billed cuckoo has faced significant population declines because of 

loss or degradation of riparian habitat, increased use of pesticides, reduced food supply, and low 

colonization rates (Hughes 1999; USFWS 2001). Habitat degradation and loss have been 

attributed to conversion to agriculture, grazing, dams and river regulation, bank protection and 

channelization for flood control, and invasion by exotic plants such as tamarisk. Additional 

impacts identified in the study area include recreation and oil and gas drilling (Howe and 

Hanberg 2000). 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-206 

 Suitable yellow-billed cuckoo habitat (cottonwood forest) occurs along the major rivers 

of the area, including the Colorado, Green, and White Rivers. The USFWS considers this species 

to be present only within portions of the study area within Utah (Appendix F). On this basis, the 

species could occur within or in the vicinity of development areas located in the Uinta Basin and 

the Asphalt Ridge STSA. 

 3.7.4.3.5 White River Beardtongue. The White River beardtongue is a perennial 

herbaceous plant that occurs in the Green River Formation in the Uinta Basin of northeastern 

Utah and Colorado. Existing populations occur in Duchesne and Uintah Counties in Utah and in 

Rio Blanco County, Colorado (UDWR 2006). It is found on semibarren areas on soils that are 

dry, shallow, and fine textured with fragmented shale. It can be found at elevations ranging from 

1,500 to 2,040 m (4,921 to 6,693 ft) on dry substrates near the bottom of the Uinta Basin to 

upper slopes and ridge crests. White River beardtongue typically grows in pinyon-juniper, 

desert shrub, and mixed desert shrub communities, and flowers in late May and early June 

(USFWS 2006g). 

 The species range is composed of small scattered populations extending from Raven 

Ridge near the White River in Rio Blanco County, Colorado, westward into southern Uintah 

County, Utah, in the area of Evacuation Creek over a distance of about 30 km (20 mi) 

(USFWS 2006g). Of the estimated population of 22,780 individual plants in Utah in 1995, about 

16,600 occurred on BLM-administered land within the Vernal Field Office (USFWS 2006g). As 

of 1998, only two populations totaling about 50 plants were known from Colorado in the vicinity 

of Raven Ridge. 

 Potential threats to the species include ground-disturbing activities such as oil and gas 

development, oil shale mining, OHV use, and impacts from livestock grazing. Several interstate 

gas and oil pipelines exist in the vicinity of known populations (USFWS 2006g). With such a 

small range and the fragmented population structure over the 20-mi range of the species, any 

habitat destruction poses a threat to the White River beardtongue. 

 The White River beardtongue could occur in or in the vicinity of development areas 

within the Green River Formation in the Uinta Basin. This includes the following development 

areas: Uinta Basin and the Hill Creek, P.R. Spring, and Raven Ridge STSAs. 

3.7.4.4 BLM-Designated Sensitive Species and State-Listed Species 

 The BLM and the states of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming maintain lists of sensitive plant 

and animal species. Many of these species have restricted distributions within the states, limited 

population sizes, and specialized habitat requirements that make them particularly vulnerable to 

human or natural perturbations. Special status provides a measure of protection through 

consideration in planning processes and is intended, at least in part, to avoid the need for federal 

listing under the ESA. The BLM manages BLM-listed sensitive species and state-listed species 

as if they were candidates for federal listing under the ESA. The species and their habitats that 

could occur in potential development areas are presented in Table E-1 of Appendix E. 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-207 

 There are 110 BLM-listed sensitive species that occur in counties of potential 

development areas. Of these, 55 potentially occur in the Green River, 38 in the Washakie, 46 in 

the Piceance, and 42 in the Uinta Basins; 58 potentially occur in STSAs (Table 3.7.4-2). Of these 

BLM-listed species, 49 are plants, 5 are invertebrates, 6 are fish, 6 are amphibians, 6 are reptiles, 

22 are birds, and 16 are mammals (Table 3.7.4-1). 

3.7.4.5 Other Species of Concern 

 In addition to the species discussed in Section 3.7.4.1, there are two species that 

potentially occur in oil shale and tar sands areas and for which the USFWS has developed 

conservation measures. These species are the bald eagle and the Colorado River cutthroat trout. 

These species have either been recently removed from the list of threatened and endangered 

species list (bald eagle) or have recently undergone a formal status review by the USFWS, but 

listing was determined to be not warranted at this time (Colorado River cutthroat trout). The 

Colorado River cutthroat trout (a BLM-sensitive species) is discussed in Sections 3.7.1 and 3.7.2, 

and the bald eagle is discussed in this section. 

 The southern bald eagle was federally listed as endangered on March 11, 1967 

(USFWS 1967). In 1978, bald eagle populations in all but five of the coterminous United States 

were listed as endangered; in the remaining five states, bald eagles were listed as threatened. The 

listing status throughout the conterminous United States was changed to threatened on July 12, 

1995, and the bald eagle was proposed for delisting on July 6, 1999 (USFWS 1999). The bald 

eagle was removed from the list of endangered and threatened wildlife on August 8, 2007 

(USFWS 2007c). The bald eagle continues to be protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act 

and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. The current U.S. range of the bald eagle includes 

all of the 48 conterminous states, plus Alaska and the District of Columbia. 

 Bald eagles typically nest in areas free of human disturbance, especially in large trees 

near water and occasionally on cliffs. The nesting season is about 6 months long. Most bald 

eagles migrate long distances to wintering areas. Wintering sites, which may attract large 

numbers of bald eagles, are generally near open water and include large trees for perching and 

night roosting. In potential development areas, bald eagles are most commonly seen along the 

major rivers such as the Colorado, Green, and White Rivers; they could occur in all of the oil 

shale basins and STSAs. Fish are the primary food source, although waterfowl, other birds, 

prairie dogs, and carrion are also eaten. 

 The take or disturbance of bald eagles is prohibited under the Bald and Golden Eagle 

Protection Act. Under 50 CFR 22.26 and 2.27; activities that take eagles or eagle nests may 

violate the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act 

defines the “take” of an eagle to include a broad range of actions, including to “pursue, shoot, 

shoot at, poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, or molest or disturb.” In 2009, the USFWS 

issued regulations (50 CFR 22.3) that define “disturb” as, “to agitate or bother a bald or golden 

eagle to a degree that causes, or is likely to cause, based on the best scientific information 

available, (1) injury to an eagle, (2) a decrease in its productivity, by substantially interfering 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-208 

with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior, or (3) nest abandonment, by substantially 

interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior.” 

3.8 VISUAL RESOURCES 

3.8.1 Introduction 

 Visual resources refer to all objects (man-made and natural, moving and stationary) and 

features (e.g., landforms and water bodies) that are visible on a landscape. These resources add 

to or detract from the scenic quality of the landscape, that is, the visual appeal of the landscape.17

 The BLM’s responsibility for managing visual (scenic) resources of public lands is 

established by law. FLPMA states that “public lands will be managed in a manner which will 

protect the quality of scenic values of these lands.” 

 The BLM conducts visual inventories and analyses within the guidelines established in its 

Visual Resource Management (VRM) System (BLM 1984a; 1986a,b). The BLM uses the VRM 

procedures and methods to support decision making for planning activities and reviews of 

proposed developments on BLM-administered lands. 

 The VRM system consists of three phases: (1) inventory of scenic values and assignment 

of visual resource inventory (VRI) classes; (2) designation of BLM management classes for all 

public lands using the RMP process; and (3) use of the Visual Contrast Rating System (VCRS) 

to evaluate the compatibility of a proposed project with the existing VRM Class for the proposed 

project location, and to determine the nature and extent of visual impacts associated with the 

project. If the project is subsequently implemented, design considerations and impact mitigation 

measures may be used to minimize the visual impacts of the project. 

 A visual resource classification is based on the intrinsic scenic quality of a view, the level 

of public concern (sensitivity) to changes in that view, and the distance between viewers and the 

view. The final result of the VRM process is the assignment of a VRM Class that provides the 

basis for the consideration of visual resources in the BLM’s resource management planning 

process. The text box that follows describes the BLM’s VRM system for inventorying scenic 

values and assigning management classes. Designation of VRM classes is done through the RMP 

process and takes into account both the scenic qualities and potential uses of an area. Changes to 

VRM classes are also accomplished through the RMP process and may result from changes in 

scenic values over time, or as a result of land use decisions. 

 

 

17 A visual impact is the creation of an intrusion or perceptible contrast that affects the scenic quality of a 

landscape. A visual impact can be perceived by an individual or group as either positive or negative, depending 

on a variety of factors or conditions (e.g., personal experience, time of day, and weather/seasonal conditions). 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-209 

 When a project is proposed, potential visual impacts are evaluated relative to an 

RMP’s visual management objectives for the affected area with the use of the VCRS. The 

VCRS is a systematic process to analyze potential visual impacts of proposed projects and 

activities (BLM 1986b). Contrast rating assesses the visual contrast between a project and the 

existing landscape. Contrast is assessed by comparing project features (explained in a detailed 

project description) with the major features of the existing landscape (contained in the VRM 

classes/objectives) in terms of the basic design elements of form, line, color, and texture. 

Comparisons are made on the basis of views from key observation points, critical viewpoints, 

typical views of representative landscapes, and views of special features. Combining the 

assessment of a proposed project’s impact on an area’s visual resources with the VRM objectives 

from the RMP may result in project modifications and/or the development of mitigation 

measures. Visual contrasts inconsistent with the VRM class objectives for the affected area are 

prohibited. 

3.8.2 Oil Shale Areas 

3.8.2.1 Piceance Basin 

 The oil shale area in Colorado, commonly referred to as the Piceance Basin, is largely 

contained within the Roan Plateau (see Figure 1.2-1). The Roan Plateau is composed of two 

major landform types: the extensive, deeply dissected, cliff-bench complexes and steep cliff 

formations of the Roan and Book Cliffs on the southern end of the plateau, and the grass-, 

shrub-, and woodland-covered benches and mesas of the Piceance Creek watershed to the north 

(Chapman et al. 2006) (Figure 3.8.2-1). Elevations range from approximately 5,200 ft above 

mean sea level (MSL) along the Colorado River to nearly 9,300 ft above MSL atop the plateau. 

The top of the plateau slopes generally northward and is dissected by tributaries of Parachute 

Creek and Piceance Creek. The eastern, southern, and western edges of the plateau are defined 

by steep slopes and prominent cliffs, known as the Roan Cliffs; the Book Cliffs extend farther 

westward along the south face of the Plateau into Utah (BLM 2004c). 

 The Roan and Book Cliffs are major scarp slopes that rise dramatically (3,000 to 4,000 ft) 

from the Colorado River valley to the forested plateau rim. Vegetation found on the escarpments 

and benches includes Douglas fir forest at higher elevations, to grassland or shrubland on lower, 

drier sites. Pinyon-juniper woodland often dominates escarpments and benches that are covered 

by shallow soils (Chapman et al. 2006). 

 The Roan and Book Cliffs are highly sensitive visual resources. The Roan Cliffs are 

visible from the communities of Parachute, Battlement Mesa, Rifle, Silt, and New Castle and to 

travelers on I-70 and State Highway 13. The massive forms of the steep cliffs dominate views 

from the valley floor and the I-70 corridor, providing dramatic color contrasts to the heavily 

vegetated upper slopes. Human-caused visual impacts are minimal, but some road cuts are 

visible on the face of the Roan Cliffs. Public sensitivity to alterations in these landscapes is high 

(BLM 1983b, 2004c), and most of the area is managed as VRM Class II. The faces of the Book 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-210 

BLM VRM System: Inventory of Scenic Values and Assignment of Management Classes 

Scenic Quality Evaluation. BLM inventory guidelines rate the apparent scenic quality of discrete areas of land 

as A, B, or C on the basis of their landform, vegetation, water, color, adjacent scenery, scarcity, and cultural 

modifications (BLM 1986a). A-rated areas have outstanding or distinctive diversity or interest, B-rated areas 

have common or average diversity or interest, and C-rated areas have minimal diversity or interest. 

Sensitivity Level Analysis. Sensitivity levels measure public concern for scenic quality. Areas are assigned a 

high, medium, or low sensitivity level by analyzing indicators of public concern: types of users, amount of use, 

public interest, adjacent land uses, special areas, and other factors that may be indicators of visual sensitivity. 

Special areas such as Wilderness Study Areas, Wild and Scenic Rivers, and Scenic Roads or Trails require 

special consideration for protection of their scenic quality. 

Distance Zone Delineation. The visual impact of a particular project will become less perceptible with 

increasing distance between the viewer and the project. The BLM VRM system uses three distance zones to 

account for this effect. It looks at likely viewing locations such as nearby highways, rivers, scenic overlooks, or 

other locations from which most viewers would observe a particular site. The foreground-middleground zone 

includes areas at a distance of less than 3 to 5 mi from the viewer. Areas viewed beyond the foregroundmiddleground zone but usually less than 15 mi from the viewer are in the background zone. Areas hidden from 

view in the foreground-middleground zone or background zone are in the seldom-seen zone. 

Visual Resource Inventory Classification. Through an overlay analysis, areas are assigned to one of four 

visual resource inventory classes based on the scenic quality, visual sensitivity, and distance zones. Inventory 

classes are informational in nature and provide the basis for considering visual values in the RMP process. 

Visual Resource Management Classification. Visual resource management classes are assigned through the 

RMP process by considering the visual resource inventory and management goals for the area. Areas are 

assigned to one of four management classes; the management objectives are as follows: 

• Class I Objective: Preserve the existing character of the landscape. The level of change should 

be very low and must not attract attention. 

• Class II Objective: Retain the existing character of the landscape. Allow a low level of change 

that should not attract the attention of a casual observer. 

• Class III Objective: Partially retain the existing character of the landscape. Allow a moderate 

level of change that may attract attention without dominating the view of a casual observer. 

• Class IV Objective: Provide for management activities that require major modifications of the 

existing character of the landscape. The level of change may be high and may dominate the 

view and be the major focus of viewer attention. 

Cliffs, the Roan Creek Area, and the I-70 corridor have also been identified as high-value scenic 

areas (BLM 1985c), as have NOSR 1 and 3 and the East Fork Parachute Creek Canyon, a 

regionally significant visual resource (BLM 2004c). Some segments of tributaries of Parachute 

Creek are eligible for WSR status because of their outstandingly remarkable scenic value 

(BLM 1994b). The Dinosaur Diamond National Scenic Byway (also known as the Dinosaur 

Diamond Prehistoric Highway) passes within approximately 7 mi of the western boundary of the 

oil shale area. 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-211 

FIGURE 3.8.2-1 Landscape in the Piceance Basin 

 The northern portion of the plateau is characterized by broad, grass-, shrub-, and 

woodland-covered benches and mesas, with areas of high relief alternating with areas of low 

relief. On floodplains and terraces, some irrigated cropland occurs. Oil and natural gas wells are 

also present (Chapman et al. 2006). Scenic values are lower than for the Roan and Book Cliffs 

areas on the southern edge of the Roan Plateau. Many of the public lands in the area are managed 

as VRM Class III (BLM 1994b). 

3.8.2.2 Uinta Basin 

 The oil shale area within the Uinta Basin is located in the Uinta Basin Floor ecoregion, an 

arid, saucer-shaped synclinal basin. The area contains mountain-fed streams, alluvial terraces, 

outwash terraces, floodplains, hills, and ridges. Mesas and benches alternate with lower, more 

arable land (Chapman et al. 2006). The area is dissected by several rivers, including the Green 

River, the White River, and their tributaries. Vegetation consists primarily of desert shrubs and 

grasses, but cottonwood and introduced Russian olive trees may be found in riparian areas. 

 Visual impacts from existing human activities in the area are abundant. They include 

impacts associated with intensive energy development in the area’s major oil and gas fields, 

mining, irrigated agriculture, and grazing. Impacts associated with energy development include 

oil and gas wells, pipelines, pump and meter stations, roads (mostly unpaved), landing strips, and 

transmission lines. Streams are often diverted for irrigation, both for crops (such as alfalfa, small 

grain, and corn) on arable, gently sloping terraces and valley floors, and for pasture on stonier 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-212 

soils. Nonirrigated areas are used for livestock grazing (Chapman et al. 2006). OHV use has also 

resulted in significant visual impacts north of the White River (BLM 2005f) (Figure 3.8.2-2). 

 Within the Uinta Basin oil shale area, the highest scenic quality is found in the Bitter 

Creek Drainage and along portions of the White and Green River corridors (BLM 2002d). The 

Winter Ridge WSA, at the southern end of the oil shale area, is currently managed as VRM 

Class I. Areas managed as VRM Class II are Nine Mile Canyon (at the far western edge of the 

oil shale area), the White River Corridor, and the Upper Green River. The proximity of intense 

exploration and development near areas of high scenic quality and the increasing number of 

people seeking recreation are creating resource use conflicts, particularly in the White River 

corridor (BLM 2005f). The remainder of the oil shale area is managed as either VRM Class III or 

VRM Class IV. Under the Approved Vernal RMP, two segments of the Green River totaling 

approximately 52 mi were found to be suitable for inclusion into the National Wild and Scenic 

River System, with a tentative classification of “Scenic” for both river segments. The Upper 

Green River segment (22 mi) extends from Little Hole to the Utah state line. The Lower Green 

River segment (30 mi) extends from the public land boundary south of Ouray to the Carbon 

County line (BLM 2008d). The Dinosaur Diamond National Scenic Byway passes within 

approximately 5 mi of the northeastern boundary of the oil shale area. 

3.8.2.3 Green River Basin 

 The Green River Basin oil shale area includes the Green River Basin and lands to the east 

of it, including the Jack Morrow Hills, and it extends about 30 mi east of the eastern edge of the 

FIGURE 3.8.2-2 Landscape in the Uinta Basin 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-213 

Jack Morrow Hills. Except for the extreme southern portion of the oil shale area (south of the 

Green River Basin), the area consists primarily of rolling sagebrush steppe, hills and low 

mountains, dunes, and playas, with shrub and grass vegetation. The landscape is varied and 

characterized by highly erodible soils and multicolored, horizontally layered sedimentary 

bedrock. Colorful badlands landscapes are common. Riparian vegetation is found along 

perennial streams, intermittent surface water locations, and rivers; sparser vegetation is located 

on side slopes and hillsides; and alkaline vegetation is found in some areas (BLM 2004e). 

 At the edges of the basin, elevations are higher, and some pinyon-juniper is found. The 

far southern portion of the oil shale area includes the northern slopes of the Uinta Mountains, 

characterized by mountain slopes with steep canyons, ponderosa and lodgepole pine, Douglas fir, 

and aspen woodlands. The Green River, its tributaries, and other permanent and intermittent 

streams drain the basin, generally southward (Chapman et al. 2006). Flaming Gorge Reservoir is 

a large water body in an area of deep canyons. 

 Although much of the Green River Basin oil shale area is relatively flat, featureless plains 

or rolling hills, there are several areas of high visual sensitivity. The Green River has been 

identified as an important scenic resource (BLM 2003). Many National Historic and Scenic 

Trails pass through the Green River Basin, including the Oregon Trail (and several cutoffs), the 

Overland Trail, the Mormon Pioneer Trail, the Northern and Southern Cherokee Trails, the Pony 

Express Trail, and the California Trail. The Devil’s Playground/Twin Butte WSA is located 

within the southern portion of the Green River Basin oil shale area. ACECs within or partially 

within the Green River Basin oil shale area include the Currant Creek portion and Sage Creek 

portion of the Red Creek Badlands ACEC, Special Status Plant Species ACEC, and the Pine 

Springs ACEC. The Flaming Gorge Uintas National Scenic Byway passes within approximately 

6 mi of the southern boundary of the oil shale area. 

 East of the Green River Basin, the Jack Morrow Hills area contains a variety of unusual 

landforms and several historical sites and roads, as well as landscapes of significance to Native 

Americans (BLM 2004d). The oil shale area includes portions of the Greater Sand Dunes ACEC 

and the Buffalo Hump WSA. 

 Cultural modifications within the basin include oil and gas production (such as well 

facilities, pipelines, roads, and power distribution lines), mining (including soda ash and coal), 

and livestock grazing operations and associated structures (such as fences and water 

developments) (BLM 2004e), as well as a number of small towns. 

3.8.2.4 Washakie Basin 

 The Washakie Basin is an area of rolling sagebrush steppe, essentially a plain with hills, 

dunes, and playas, and with shrub and grass vegetation (BLM 2004e; Chapman et al. 2006). At 

the edges of the basin, elevations are higher, and some pinyon-juniper is found. A few streams, 

mostly intermittent, drain the basin. 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-214 

 The Washakie Basin is an area of active energy development, including oil and gas, 

coalbed methane, and other products. Visual disturbances associated with these types of 

activities, including roads, wells, pipelines, compressor stations, and meter stations, are found in 

the basin. 

 Just north of the oil shale area, the historic Overland Trail runs generally east–west 

through the northern portion of the Washakie Basin, and a BLM backcountry byway, Ft. Lacede 

Loop, is located in the northern portion of the basin. The Southern Route of the Cherokee Trail 

passes east to west through the basin, near the Colorado state line. 

3.8.3 Special Tar Sand Areas 

3.8.3.1 Argyle Canyon STSA 

 The Argyle Canyon STSA has a variety of landforms, including ridges, benches, and 

steep canyons. The area is dissected by numerous intermittent streams and a few perennial 

streams, and it has rugged, high-relief terrain, with local relief ranging from about 660 to 1,300 ft 

(USGS 1980b). 

 Scenic quality in the Argyle Canyon STSA varies, but is generally high, because of the 

variety of both landform and vegetation, which ranges from Douglas fir and aspen at higher 

elevations to big sagebrushgrass communities and riparian areas along Argyle Creek 

(BLM 1984b). Most of the STSA is managed as VRM Class III. 

 Argyle Canyon is an area of the STSA of particular concern for visual values. Argyle 

Creek was under consideration as eligible for WSR status because of its outstandingly 

remarkable scenic value (BLM 2005c); however, it was determined not to be suitable under the 

relevant test and was not classified as a WSR in the 2008 Vernal RMP. Much of the BLM 

portion of the STSA is bordered by a USFS roadless area to the north that includes small 

portions of the STSA. The Dinosaur Diamond National Scenic Byway passes through the eastern 

portion of the Argyle Canyon STSA. The Energy Loop: Huntington/Eccles Canyons National 

Scenic Byway passes within approximately 7 mi of the western boundary of the STSA. 

3.8.3.2 Asphalt Ridge STSA 

 The three areas that compose the Asphalt Ridge STSA vary in scenic quality. The largest 

area closest to Vernal (Asphalt Ridge) is a cuesta or asymmetrical ridge, with mostly gently 

sloping topography. Vegetation consists primarily of pinyon-juniper and mixed shrubs. 

 The Asphalt Ridge portion of the STSA is generally of low scenic quality (BLM 1984b). 

It is in close proximity to the towns of Maeser, Vernal, and Naples, with urbanized areas that 

contain numerous visual intrusions visible from portions of the ridge. Cultural modifications that 

have existing visual impacts in the STSA include roads (e.g., State Highway 40), power lines, 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-215 

and industrial facilities. Some crops and pastureland are found in the far eastern portions of the 

STSA. The Asphalt Ridge portion of the STSA is designated as VRM Class IV in the Approved 

Vernal RMP (BLM 2008d). The Dinosaur Diamond National Scenic Byway (State Highway 40) 

passes through the Asphalt Ridge portion of the STSA. 

 The two western portions of the STSA (north-northeast of Whiterocks) are areas of 

generally higher scenic quality than the Asphalt Ridge portion (BLM 1984b). These portions 

compose a dissected plain. The part closest to the Asphalt Ridge portion (primarily on the Uintah 

and Ouray Reservation) was designated as VRM Class IV in the Approved Vernal RMP 

(BLM 2008d). The westernmost portion of the STSA (on the Ashley National Forest) is an area 

of high scenic quality and sensitivity, with stone outcrops and riparian views along the White 

Rocks River, which provide pleasing visual contrasts with the predominant gray-green pinyonjuniper and shrub vegetation (BLM 1984b). Both areas abut USFS roadless areas on their 

northern and/or eastern boundaries. 

3.8.3.3 Hill Creek STSA 

 The Hill Creek STSA is a well dissected, deeply incised, rugged upland. The entire area 

is a north-sloping cuesta in which the plateau surface slopes toward the north. The landform is 

generally rolling desert topography with deeply incised canyons and rocky buttes. Vegetation is 

generally sparse at lower elevations and more dense at higher elevations. Two north-flowing 

perennial streams drain the central and eastern portions of the STSA (USGS 1980c). 

 The scenic quality in the Hill Creek STSA is moderate; the STSA is managed as VRM 

Class III and Class IV. The STSA is visible from Big Pack Mountain to the north (BLM 1984b), 

and the Winter Ridge WSA (managed as VRM Class I) is less than 0.5 km (0.3 mi) from the 

eastern border of the Hill Creek STSA. Cultural modifications include roads, trails, and landing 

strips. 

3.8.3.4 Pariette STSA 

 The Pariette STSA is a gently sloping dissected plain that includes low mesas and buttes, 

ranging up to about 300 ft maximum local relief, with relief generally less than 100 ft. The area 

is drained predominantly eastward by Pariette Draw and Castle Peak Draw. 

 Scenic quality in the Pariette STSA is low; the landscape is visually homogenous, with 

cold desert shrubs and flat to rolling landform with occasional low hills and ridges, which are 

common in the region (BLM 1984b). Cultural modifications with existing visual impacts in the 

STSA include roads and trails, a pipeline and meter station, and some croplands along the 

northern border of the STSA. Gas processing plants are located along the southern border of the 

STSA, with an electrical substation nearby. The Pariette STSA is designated as VRM Class IV in 

the Approved Vernal RMP (BLM 2008d). The Pariette Wetlands ACEC overlaps portions of the 

STSA. The Dinosaur Diamond National Scenic Byway passes within approximately 2 mi 

northwest of the extreme western boundary of the STSA. 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-216 

3.8.3.5 P.R. Spring STSA 

 The P.R. Spring STSA is located on the East Tavaputs Plateau to the immediate east of 

the Hill Creek STSA. The southern edge of the P.R. Spring STSA borders the Book CliffsRoan 

Plateau divide. Like the Hill Creek STSA, the plateau surface slopes northward. The area is 

drained by perennial streams that run generally north and northwest (USGS 1980d). The terrain 

consists of long ridges running generally northwest to southeast, separated by canyons 820 to 

1,475 ft deep. Vegetation consists primarily of mountain shrub and pinyon-juniper, with stands 

of Douglas fir and other conifers on east- and north-facing slopes (BLM 1984b). 

 The scenic quality of the STSA is generally low; most of it is managed as VRM Class IV. 

High-quality panoramic views of the Book Cliffs and other distant landforms, however, are 

available from the top of the Roan Cliffs along the southeastern boundary of the STSA 

(BLM 1984b). Cultural modifications include oil and gas development and associated structures, 

roads, trails, and landing strips. Much of the Winter Ridge WSA (managed as VRM Class I) is 

located within the western portion of the P.R. Spring STSA, and the far southern part of the 

STSA overlaps a small portion of the Flume Canyon WSA. 

3.8.3.6 Raven Ridge STSA 

 The Raven Ridge STSA consists primarily of two parallel hogback ridges (Raven Ridge 

and Squaw Ridge) running northwest to southeast. The ridge extends beyond the Colorado state 

line to the southeast. The southwestern portion of the STSA is a slightly dissected plain. The 

ridge is drained by intermittent washes (USGS 1980a). 

 The scenic quality for this STSA is generally low; vegetation is cold desert shrubs, and 

the landform (rolling hills with sparse vegetation, except for the ridge itself) is relatively 

common in the region. Cultural modifications with existing visual impacts in the STSA include 

roads and trails, power lines, pipelines, and a natural gas facility. The Raven Ridge STSA is 

designated as VRM Class IV in the Approved Vernal RMP (BLM 2008d). Portions of the STSA 

are visible from Dinosaur National Monument (BLM 1984b), the closest portion of which is 

located approximately 7 mi north of the northernmost portion of the STSA. The Dinosaur 

Diamond National Scenic Byway passes within approximately 1/8 mi of the northeastern 

boundary of the STSA. Raven Ridge is an area of high OHV use, with resultant visual impacts 

(BLM 2005e). 

3.8.3.7 San Rafael Swell STSA 

 The San Rafael Swell STSA is located within the San Rafael Swell, a northeast-tosouthwest trending dome approximately 70 mi long by 50 mi wide. An open, gently domed area 

(Sinbad Country) about 40 mi long and 10 mi wide occupies the central part of the swell and 

contains most of the STSA. Sinbad Country is bordered on the east and southeast by the 

spectacular sandstone hogbacks of the San Rafael Reef. I-70 passes through the middle of the 

swell and the STSA. The southwest and west sides of Sinbad Country are well dissected, and 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-217 

they feature many “castles,” irregular mesas, and benches, as much as 700 ft above the general 

level of the swell. The land surface south of I-70 is not deeply dissected and is primarily gently 

rolling plain with isolated buttes and knolls. North of I-70, the relief is greater, with deeply 

dissected canyons and escarpments carved by the San Rafael River and its tributaries. Relief is 

greatest near the San Rafael River, where it is up to 1,700 ft (USGS 1980e). 

 The vegetation of the San Rafael Swell includes pinyon-juniper and Douglas fir near 

water sources. Cottonwood trees are found in areas along the perennial streams. Greasewood, 

sagebrush, and rabbitbrush are found along washes, and sparse grass and prickly pear are 

common (Williams 2002). 

 The San Rafael Swell area offers outstanding scenic quality and is one of the region’s 

most well-known and popular scenic attractions. Within the San Rafael Swell, features such as 

the Wedge Overlook (Figure 3.8.3-1), San Rafael Reef, Mexican Mountain, Temple Mountain, 

and Buckhorn Draw attract high levels of recreation visitation, as does the I-70 corridor. The 

I-70 Scenic Corridor ACEC is managed to maintain the scenic qualities of the San Rafael Swell, 

where the interstate bisects the area. Old uranium mines, dirt roads, livestock improvements, and 

simple recreation facilities are evident in some locations, as are petroglyphs, pictographs, and 

some historic structures (BLM 2001b). Other scenic attractions include riparian areas along the 

San Rafael River and Muddy Creek. The Dinosaur Diamond National Scenic Byway passes 

within approximately 6.5 mi of the northeastern boundary of the STSA. 

FIGURE 3.8.3-1 View from Wedge Overlook, San Rafael Swell near Castledale, Utah 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-218 

 The STSA overlaps several ACECs, including four (the I-70 Scenic Corridor ACEC, 

San Rafael Canyon ACEC, San Rafael Reef ACEC, and Sid’s Mountain ACEC) designated for 

scenic value. Significant portions of some STSA parcels not only cross the I-70 Scenic Corridor 

ACEC but overlap or are immediately adjacent to six WSAs, which are primarily designated as 

VRI Class II but are managed as VRM Class I in accordance with the 1991 San Rafael RMP. 

Major portions of the STSA are visible from the I-70 Scenic Corridor (BLM 1984b). Portions of 

STSA parcels outside the WSAs are mostly designated VRI Class III and IV and are managed as 

VRM Class III and IV, with some smaller VRI and VRM Class II areas. The Muddy Creek and 

Segers Hole ACECs are located approximately 2 and 10 mi south of the southwestern boundary 

of the STSA, respectively; both ACECs contain outstandingly remarkable scenic values. 

3.8.3.8 Sunnyside STSA 

 The Sunnyside STSA is characterized by numerous rugged, mountainous forested areas 

and canyons, perennial streams, and mountaintop vistas. Bands of red rock cliffs are ubiquitous 

throughout and extend along most of the ridges. Many ridges extend downward off the plateaus, 

creating a sequence and layering of ridges that add much visual variety and spatial definition to 

the study area. Cliffs are often broken up and of varying heights. Vegetation consists of 

pinyon-juniper clumps, junipers, and firs, intermixed with sagebrush and grasses on the upper 

ridges and plateaus; sagebrush, rabbitbrush, greasewood, and grasses with groupings of aspens, 

cottonwoods, willows, tamarisks, and associated riparian species dominate the canyon floors 

(BLM 2004f). 

 The STSA and surrounding areas have very high scenic quality and have been described 

as offering “outstanding visual values” (BLM 1984b). The STSA lands are managed as VRM 

Class II and Class III, reflecting the high scenic values and sensitivity of the landscape to 

modification; portions of the STSA are visible from U.S. Highway 6, and to residents of 

Wellington, Price, and other local communities. 

 Nine Mile Canyon and the Nine Mile Canyon ACEC, an area of the STSA of particular 

concern for visual values, are managed as VRM Class II (BLM 2005e). The ACEC designation 

recognizes the scenic values of the canyon area. Nine Mile Canyon contains dramatic topography 

of high canyon walls, with steep side canyons and isolated buttes, mesas, and outcrops. A lush 

riparian zone of willow and cottonwood is found on the canyon bottom. Water features include 

the stream and beaver ponds. Farms and ranches provide a rural appearance to an otherwise 

natural-looking landscape. Other cultural modifications include roads, trails, and pipeline. The 

canyon walls contain numerous petroglyphs and other cultural resource sites visible from the 

county road that follows the canyon bottom. Within Nine Mile Canyon is the greatest 

concentration of rock art sites in the United States. The Nine Mile Canyon Scenic Byway, a State 

Scenic Byway and a BLM Backcountry Byway, follows the length of Nine Mile Canyon 

(BLM 2004a). Nine Mile Creek has been determined to be eligible for WSR designation, in part 

because of its outstandingly remarkable scenic value (BLM 2004b, 2005c); however, it was 

determined not to be suitable under the relevant test and was not classified as a WSR in the 

2008 Vernal RMP. 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-219 

 The far western portion of the Sunnyside STSA overlaps the Lears Canyon ACEC. The 

far eastern portion of the main Sunnyside STSA parcel includes small portions of the Jack 

Canyon and Desolation Canyon WSAs. A small STSA parcel is located entirely within the two 

WSAs. Part of the BLM portion of the STSA is bordered by a USFS roadless area to the north. 

3.8.3.9 Tar Sand Triangle STSA 

 The Tar Sand Triangle STSA is located in an area characterized by flat-topped mesas and 

steep-walled canyons. Elevation ranges from 4,800 to nearly 7,000 ft. The margins have stairstep topography, with mesas and buttes beyond the cliffs. The area is remote and very rugged, 

with relief up to 3,700 ft. Vegetation is sparse, with some desert shrubs and grasses, as well as 

scattered pinyon-juniper (BLM 1984b). 

 The high-quality scenic and recreational resources in and around the STSA are nationally 

significant (BLM 1984b). A significant portion of the STSA is in Glen Canyon NRA, and small 

portions are in Canyonlands National Park. More than half of the remainder of the STSA 

overlays the Fiddler Butte and French SpringHappy Canyon WSAs. Scenic attractions in the 

STSA and the surrounding area constitute a major attraction for recreational users. Scenic 

attractions include unique landforms resulting from erosion, with flat-topped mesas, buttes, 

rugged cliffs, and canyons and slickrock formations. Mesas throughout the STSA offer views of 

the surrounding canyons and mountain ranges, such as the dramatic colorful landforms of the 

Maze portion of Canyonlands National Park and Glen Canyon NRA, the varied landforms of the 

deeply incised canyons of the Colorado and Dirty Devil Rivers, and Lake Powell. Panoramic 

views of the Colorado River canyons from the Orange Cliffs on the eastern edge of the STSA are 

particularly noteworthy, as is the staircase of terraces and vertical cliffs from the mesa tops to the 

bottom of Happy Canyon. Detached, sculptured buttes, monuments, and minarets are also found 

within the STSA (BLM 1984b). 

 Much of the BLM-managed public land in the STSA has been inventoried as VRI 

Class III or Class IV, except Happy Canyon and French Spring, which are VRI Class II. Smaller 

areas inventoried as VRI Class II are located south of Happy Canyon. Outside Glen Canyon 

NRA, most of the STSA has been designated VRM Class 1 because most of the STSA land 

outside the NRA is part of the French-Spring-Happy Canyon or Fiddler Butte WSAs. The 

remainder of the STSA land outside the NRA is predominantly VRM Class II, with lesser 

amounts of VRM Class III and IV lands, as indicated in the Richfield RMP (BLM 2008i). 

3.8.3.10 White Canyon STSA 

 Much of the White Canyon STSA is a mesa incised by White Canyon (Figure 3.8.3-2). 

The southern portion of the STSA has bench and slope topography. Around the tar sands 

deposits, the ground slopes to the west, with elevations ranging from approximately 6,100 ft on 

the northeast end of the STSA to about 4,800 ft on the southwestern end. White Canyon is about 

6 mi wide where it bisects the STSA, but much of the STSA is in Short Canyon (a side canyon of 

White Canyon) (BLM 1984b).Vegetation is sparse; there is a mixture of desert shrubs on the 

benches and scattered cottonwood riparian communities in the canyons. 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-220 

FIGURE 3.8.3-2 White Canyon Bridge on State Route 95, San Juan 

County, Utah 

 The scenic value of the STSA is high. The 

STSA contains highly scenic canyon landforms, 

eroded through colorful sandstone layers that 

contrast pleasingly with the shrub and pinyonjuniper vegetation. The southern portion of the 

STSA is crossed by the Bicentennial Scenic 

Byway (a segment of Highway U-95, designated 

as a Utah State Scenic Byway) in the Scenic 

Highway Corridor ACEC. This ACEC includes 

a portion of the White Canyon viewshed 

(BLM 1984b). White Canyon is managed as 

VRM Class II (BLM 1987b). A portion of the 

Dark Canyon WSA is adjacent to the northwest 

boundary of the White Canyon STSA. At its 

closest point, Glen Canyon NRA is 

approximately 2 mi from the STSA. 

3.9 CULTURAL RESOURCES 

 Cultural resources include archaeological 

sites and historic structures and features that are 

addressed under the NHPA, as amended 

(P.L. 89-665). Cultural resources also include 

National Register Criteria for Evaluation 

(36 CFR 60.4)a

The quality of significance in American history, 

architecture, archeology, engineering, and culture 

is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, 

and objects that possess integrity of location, 

design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, 

and association, and 

A. that are associated with events that have made 

a significant contribution to the broad patterns 

of our history; or 

B. that are associated with the lives of persons 

significant in our past; or 

C. that embody the distinctive characteristics of a 

type, period, or method of construction, or that 

represent the work of a master, or that possess 

high artistic values, or that represent a 

significant and distinguishable entity whose 

components may lack individual distinction; or

D. that have yielded or may be likely to yield, 

information important in prehistory or history. 

a Additional criteria considerations are also 

provided in 36 CFR 60.4.
Final OSTS PEIS 3-221 

traditional cultural properties, that is, properties that are important to a community’s practices 

and beliefs and that are necessary for maintaining the community’s cultural identity. Cultural 

resources refer to both man-made and natural physical features associated with human activity 

and, in most cases, are finite, unique, fragile, and nonrenewable. Cultural resources that meet the 

eligibility criteria for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) are historic 

properties (see text box). Federal agencies must take into consideration the effects on such 

properties of any undertakings under their direct or indirect jurisdiction before they approve 

expenditures or issue licenses. 

 Cultural resources on BLM-administered land are managed primarily through the 

application of the laws identified in Appendix D. As required by Section 106 of the NHPA, BLM 

offices work with land use applicants to inventory and evaluate cultural resources in areas that 

may be affected by proposed development. The BLM has established a cultural resource 

management program as identified in its 8100 Series manuals and handbooks (see Section D.2 

in Appendix D). The goal of the program is to locate, evaluate, manage, and protect cultural 

resources on public lands. (See Section 3.1, Land Use, for a description of designated ACECs, 

some of which are designated specifically to protect cultural resources.) Guidance on how to 

apply the NRHP criteria to evaluate the eligibility of sites located on public lands is provided in 

numerous documents prepared by the NPS and in the BLM 8100 Series manuals and handbooks. 

Further guidance on the application of cultural resource laws and regulations is provided through 

the 2012 BLM National PA and State Protocols developed among the BLM, the National 

Conference of SHPOs, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and through statespecific PAs concerning cultural resources. 

 Although site-specific information regarding cultural resources would need to be 

collected to define the affected environment of an individual project, the types of sites listed on 

the NRHP in the broad study area for this PEIS include archaeological sites, historic buildings, 

bridges, historic trails, prehistoric dwellings, historic districts, water features (e.g., canals and 

ditches), and cultural landscapes. (See also Section 3.8 for a brief discussion of National Historic 

and Scenic Trails and other conservation areas established under the NLCS with a visual or 

scenic component.) A Class I cultural resource overview describing, in general, the types of 

resources known to be present in the oil shale and tar sands study area has been prepared in 

support of this PEIS and is summarized below for each of the oil shale basins and STSAs 

(O’Rourke et al. 2012). 

3.9.1 NHPA Section 106 Compliance 

 Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (NHPA) 

requires the heads of federal agencies to take into account the effects of undertakings on any 

“district, site, building, structure, or object” that is included in or eligible for inclusion in the 

NRHP (historic properties), and to provide the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

(ACHP) a reasonable opportunity to comment. 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-222 

 All stages of oil shale and tar sands development (see text box in Section 1, Chapter 1) 

represent federal undertakings that are subject to the requirements of Section 106 of NHPA. The 

BLM will meet its responsibilities for Section 106 compliance at these various stages as follows. 

3.9.1.1 Land Use Plan Allocation 

 Undertaking: This PEIS analyzes the effects of allocating BLM lands as open or closed 

to applications for leasing. See Section 7.7 for a discussion of the findings of this analysis. Once 

the Record of Decision is signed, the BLM may accept applications to lease land for the 

commercial production of oil shale/tar sands resources. This PEIS does not evaluate impacts 

from future leases or project proposals, nor does it authorize any such leases or projects. Nothing 

in this land allocation decision constrains the BLM from approving, modifying, or denying any 

future lease application based on review and evaluation of that application with regard to the 

requirements of NHPA and other pertinent laws, regulations, and policies. 

Analysis of Effects: The BLM is analyzing existing cultural resource information and 

consulting with affected tribes, State Historic Preservation Officers, and other interested parties, 

as required (36 CFR 800.2), to determine the effects of the decision to allocate certain BLM 

lands as open or closed to oil shale and tar sands leasing and development. See Section 7.7 for a 

discussion of the findings of this analysis. The BLM’s determination will include consideration 

of the following: 

• It is not known whether current technologies or new technologies might be 

employed in the future. Therefore, in this PEIS the BLM can only provide a 

very general analysis of the types of resources that might be encountered 

during development, the types of impacts that might be sustained based on 

current technology, and recommendations for mitigation of those possible 

impacts should they occur. 

• The analyses in this PEIS do show that cultural resources are likely to be 

present within areas allocated as open to lease application. The BLM is 

required to consider effects on these resources during the lease application and 

subsequent project development phases, when actual effects on known 

cultural and tribal resources can be analyzed based on defined technologies 

and activities, as part of its obligations under Section 106 of NHPA and other 

applicable laws, regulations, and policies. 

 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-223 

• As part of the land use planning exercise, the BLM has decided to exclude 

from allocation all NLCS (i.e., historic trails18) and ACEC units, such as 

Nine Mile Canyon (Utah) and Duck Creek (Colorado) that have significant 

cultural values; and National Historic Landmarks (Table 3.9.1-1). 

• The allocation decision analyzed in this PEIS authorizes the BLM to accept 

applications for leases for oil shale/tar sands development. The allocation 

decision does not constrain BLM managers with regard to any future decision 

to approve, modify, or deny such applications. Subsequent actions that derive 

from the decision to allocate lands as open to oil shale/tar sands leasing and 

development must comply with Section 106 of NHPA as well as all other 

pertinent laws, regulations, and policies. 

3.9.1.2 Leasing 

Undertaking: An applicant may submit to the BLM a proposal to lease certain lands for 

development. The decision to lease certain lands requires compliance with all relevant laws, 

regulations, and policies including, but not limited to, full compliance with the requirements of 

Section 106 of NHPA. Subsequent to the required analyses, the BLM may approve, modify, or 

deny the lease application. It is likely that if approved, the lease application would include 

stipulations with regard to use of the lease. 

Analysis of Effects: When the BLM is considering a lease application, its responsibilities 

under NHPA Section 106 and other federal requirements include, but are not limited to, the 

following: 

• Compliance with all tribal consultation and government-to-government 

responsibilities under various authorities including departmental and internal 

agency policies. 

 

18 National Trails are officially established under the authority of the National Trails System Act (NTSA), 

P.L. 90-543, which became law October 2, 1968. The Act and its subsequent amendments authorized creation of 

a national system of trails and defined four classes of trails: National Scenic Trails, National Historic Trails, 

National Recreation Trails, and Connecting or Side Trails. In addition to the NTSA, the NHPA, NEPA, and the 

FLPMA are important authorities that support trail management. The trails within the study area and on BLMadministered public lands are National Historic Trails and are managed as part of the NLCS. The National 

Historic Trails that cross the most geologically prospective oil shale area are listed in Table 3.9.1-1. National 

Trail Corridors that have been established through BLM Field Office RMPs are excluded from future leasing for 

oil shale development (Section 2.3.3). Where these corridors have not been established through an RMP, the 

BLM policy is that an “area of potential impact” would be determined through an inventory, where appropriate, 

and potential impacts to trail resources would be analyzed prior to leasing, and would be mitigated as necessary. 

Some additional discussion of National Historic Trails is included in Sections 3.1 (Land Use) and 3.8 (Visual 

Resources). 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-224 

TABLE 3.9.1-1 Cultural Resource Exclusion Areas Intersecting Oil Shale or Tar Sands Areas 

 ACEC Acres 

Exclusion Area Field Office(s) Total 

Within Oil 

Shale Areas 

Within 

STSAs 

 

ACECs 

Colorado 

 Duck Creeka White River 3,425.8 3,425.8 0.0 

 Dudley Bluffsa White River 1,628.2 1,628.2 0.0 

 East Fork Parachute Creek Colorado River Valley 6,566.1 1,289.4 0.0 

 Northwater Creek Colorado River Valley 1,961.9 1,591.9 0.0 

 Ryan Gulcha White River 1,436.4 1,436.4 0.0 

 Trapper Creek Co. River Valley, White River 2,844.0 1,418.1 0.0 

 17,862.4 10,789.7 0.0 

 

Utah 

 Copper Globe Price 128.6 0.0 128.6 

 I-70 Scenic Highway Price 45,631.3 0.0 4,369.3 

 Lears Canyon Vernal 1,377.8 0.0 889.7 

 Lower Green Rivera Vernal 9,430.2 7,683.6 0.0 

 Nine Mile Canyona Vernal and Price 48,151.0 539.2 12,562.8 

 Pariette Wetlandsa Vernal 10,635.2 6,523.1 2,254.6 

 San Rafael Canyon Price 54,144.7 0.0 22,227.6 

 San Rafael Reef Price 84,084.6 0.0 4,760.6 

 Segers Hole Price NA NA NA 

 Sid’s Mountain Price 61,430.5 0.0 215.0 

 Temple Mountain Price 2,446.0 0.0 2,439.3 

 1,522,274.8 199,521.1 328,938.2 

 

Wyoming 

 Greater Red Creek Rock Springs 175,240.0 44,656.9 0.0 

 Greater Sand Dunes Rock Springs 41,644.2 256.5 0.0 

 Pine Springs Rock Springs 6,054.9 6,054.9 0.0 

 Special Status Plant Speciesa Rock Springs, Kemmerer 1,009.9 140.3 0.0 

 White Mountain Petroglyphs Rock Springs 21.7 21.7 0.0 

 223,970.6 51,130.3 0.0 

 

National Historic Trailsb 

Wyoming 

 Mormon National Historic 

 Trail 

Rock Springs, Kemmerer 

 Pony Express National 

 Historic Trail 

Rock Springs, Kemmerer 

 Oregon/California National 

 Historic Trail 

Rock Springs, Kemmerer 

a ACECs open for oil and gas leasing under Alternative 1 but closed to leasing under Alternatives 2, 3, and 4. 

b Acreages are not available for the intersection of National Historic Trails and oil shale areas due to the lack 

of definite boundaries on the trails.
Final OSTS PEIS 3-225 

• Tribal consultation with regard to the BLM’s responsibilities under NHPA, 

which would emphasize the need to identify and evaluate places of traditional 

religious or cultural importance. 

• Identification and evaluation of cultural resources sufficient to support the 

analysis of the effects of issuing a lease. This effort includes an analysis of 

existing overview information and a current records and literature search. A 

Class II or Class III inventory may also be required, if necessary to determine 

the undertaking’s effect on historic properties. 

• Identification of measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate any adverse effects 

from the decision to lease, and incorporation of these measures as stipulations 

in the lease or as otherwise appropriate. The BLM can also decide that the 

importance of a historic property outweighs the development of the oil 

shale/tar sands resource and deny the application. 

3.9.1.3 Project Development 

Undertaking: An applicant must submit a detailed plan of development to the BLM for 

review prior to any project approval. At this time, the BLM will require a detailed review and 

analysis of the effects of specific actions on specific resources in compliance with Section 106 of 

NHPA, as well as all other pertinent laws, regulations, and policies. As a result of these analyses, 

the BLM is required to identify measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate adverse effects on 

cultural and tribal resources as conditions of approval of the project. 

 Analysis of Effects: 

• Tribal consultation under various authorities will continue throughout this 

stage, especially as the possible effects of the development become apparent. 

Consultation will likely focus on defining specific effects to resources of 

concern, and identifying measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate those 

effects. 

• The BLM will continue consultation with appropriate consulting parties as it 

further defines the area of potential effect, the resources likely to be affected, 

and measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate adverse effects from project 

development. 

• It is at this stage that detailed field review will take place, including Class III 

cultural resource inventories, visual resource inventories, and other site 

specific reviews as needed. Any inventory data gathered during the leasing 

stage will be incorporated into field studies occurring at the project 

development stage. 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-226 

 According to regulation and policy, the BLM may conclude its Section 106 consideration 

with a Programmatic Agreement or Memorandum of Agreement among the various consulting 

parties. Any conditions or stipulations needed to protect the cultural resource values in the area 

will be attached to the plan of development prior to approval. 

3.9.2 Piceance Basin 

3.9.2.1 Prehistoric Context for Archaeological Sites, Features, and Structures 

 There is archaeological and ethnographic evidence to suggest that the Piceance Basin 

was inhabited and visited on a regular basis by human populations for more than 12,000 years. 

Abundant native faunal and floral resources were available to early human populations as part 

of a seasonal round of subsistence. Permanent seasonal water sources within the area attracted 

numerous animal species, including mule deer. 

 The cultural history for northwestern Colorado is divided chronologically into four major 

time periods, or eras, as defined by Reed and Metcalf (1999). These eras include the Paleoindian 

era (11,450 to 6,400 B.C), the Archaic era (6,400 to 400 B.C.), the Formative era (400 B.C. to 

A.D. 1300), and the Protohistoric era (A.D. 1300 to 1880). Each time period yields distinctive 

sets of artifacts and archaeological features. Large lanceolate points used for hunting bison and 

other big game are characteristic artifacts of Paleoindian Period sites and are usually found as 

isolated artifacts or in association with later period sites. The Archaic era represents a shift in 

diet and settlement patterns to a greater reliance on gathering wild plant foods and hunting 

smaller game. 

 During the Formative era, there was a shift from the seasonal hunter-gatherer subsistence 

strategy toward that of early farming practices. However, hunting and gathering continued to 

play a major role in the economy, and use of the bow and arrow was introduced during this 

period. In northwestern Colorado, the Formative era is represented by two distinct traditions, the 

Fremont and Aspen. The development of horticulture is unique to the Fremont. The main crop of 

the Fremont in general was corn, but cheno-ams appear to have been important in the Piceance 

Basin. The Fremont is also associated with the introduction of pottery and the appearance of 

unique rock art and modeled clay figurines. The Fremont sites in the Piceance Basin and vicinity 

would most closely relate to a Plains-influenced variant of the Fremont known as the Uinta 

Fremont. Important characteristics of the Uinta variant include the presence of shallow pithouses and freestanding structures, and the complete absence of Fremont clay figurines. Fremont 

sites include rock art sites, open and sheltered artifact scatters, and architectural sites. According 

to Reed and Metcalf (1999), no confirmed Fremont pit-houses have been found in the study area. 

Contemporaneous with the Fremont culture, the Aspen Tradition is assigned to nonhorticultural 

groups residing in the region during the Formative era; the sites are similar with the two 

exceptions of no evidence of farming and no Fremont-style pottery. It is not expected that the 

prehistoric populations practiced horticulture in the Piceance Basin per se, because of the 

relatively short growing season and inadequate soil conditions. However, horticultural sites are 

found very near to the basin to the west and northwest. 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-227 

 The Protohistoric era is defined by what appears to be a gradual ending to the Fremont 

horticultural lifeways and the return to a more mobile, hunter-gatherer life style similar to that 

of the earlier Archaic era. The cause of this shift is unknown, but it is speculated that either an 

outside group migrated in, replacing or mixing with the Fremont and Aspen groups, or the 

Fremont chose to abandon horticulture. Most structures found at Protohistoric sites are wikiups, 

or brush structures. In the later portion of the Protohistoric era (after 1650), the horse is 

introduced and tipi rings appear in the archaeological record. The Protohistoric hunter-gather 

groups were ancestral Ute or Shoshone. Both groups ranged widely. The Shoshone wintered in 

the Wind River and Green River Valleys, but their seasonal round of hunting and gathering could 

take them far afield. The Yampa Valley was a favored area for harvesting wild plants and some 

Shoshone bands were reported as far north as Canada and as far south as Mexico (Baker et al. 

2007; BLM 2004g). Ute and Shoshone continued to hunt and gather resources in the study area 

even after their official removal to reservations in the mid-to-late 19th century. 

3.9.2.2 Historic Context for Archaeological Sites, Features, and Structures 

 The historic context for northwestern Colorado is presented in the Class I Cultural 

Resource Overview (O’Rourke et al. 2012) and is summarized briefly here. Historic period sites 

in this region broadly follow some general themes, notably early exploration and fur trade, 

ranching and settlement, and mining. European exploration of this region of Colorado began in 

1776 with two Spanish missionaries (Franciscan friars Dominguez and Escalante) looking for a 

new route from New Mexico to California missions that avoided resistance from Hopi Indians 

in Arizona. They encountered Ute bands no further north than the Colorado River drainage. 

Shoshone or Comanche appear to have resided to the north and west of the Ute. Rock art with 

elements of the “Plains Biographic Style” associated with the Shoshone or Comanche has been 

found in Rio Blanco County (Martin and Miller 2009a,b; Ott 2010). Dominguez and Escalante 

found no new route, and the area was not visited again until the 1820s when the fur trade began 

to flourish in the region. Both the Ute and the Shoshone bands were actively involved in the 

fur trade; their interaction with one another was sometimes friendly and sometimes hostile 

(Baker et al. 2007; BLM 2004g). In addition to the use of the area by trappers, a number of 

explorers surveyed the area, but their descriptions of northwestern Colorado are limited to 

references to its being dry and useless. However, the discovery of gold in the Denver area in 

1859 brought many prospectors to Colorado. A subsequent survey of the northwestern region a 

decade later indicated that while the area could not support agriculture without large-scale 

irrigation, it could support ranching. This in effect opened up the area to ranching, an economic 

practice that continues today. As more and more ranches and small settlements were being 

established, pressures with the existing bands of Ute Indians began to escalate as traditional Ute 

hunting territory was being encroached upon. Several treaties were established between 1849 and 

1868 and culminated in the placement of the Ute and Shoshone bands onto reservations. 

 Large-scale open range cattle ranching was at its peak in the region between 1880 and the 

early 1900s. Sheep herding was also getting a start as a local industry. “Sheep wars” broke out 

between 1890 and 1920 as the sheep started to encroach on cattle country. This prompted a 

reorganization of grazing rights in Colorado and the introduction of land allotments in 1934 

through the establishment of the Taylor Grazing Service to control land use. These events 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-228 

essentially ended open range cattle grazing and significantly slowed down the process of 

additional homesteading in this area. It also eventually resulted in the formation of the BLM, 

which controls grazing rights on public lands through the issuance of permits to this day. 

 Coal and oil were known to be present in the region as early as 1870 and 1890, 

respectively. Most of the coal mining was conducted east and south of the Piceance Basin. It was 

not until World War II that the demand for oil sparked sufficient interest to get the industry 

underway in this region. In addition to the oil, oil shale deposits present in the Piceance Basin, 

particularly in the Mahogany Zone, were getting attention from industry, as different companies 

experimented with various recovery techniques. By 1920, DeBeque, Colorado, was known as the 

shale oil capitol of the United States. However, no economical technique was discovered to 

recover the oil from the shale, and the industry experienced a series of ups and downs as 

experimentation continued. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, there was a surge in interest, but 

this too was short-lived and resulted in some serious economic issues for the region. 

3.9.2.3 Surveys and Sites in the Study Area 

 In the most geologically prospective oil shale area of the Piceance Basin study area, a 

total of 849 different surveys have occurred, according to the Colorado SHPO database. These 

investigations are predominantly Class III intensive field surveys. Spatial analyses of the GIS 

data revealed that approximately 162,308 acres in the Piceance Basin have been subjected to 

some level of survey. 

 The total number of recorded sites within the geologically prospective oil shale areas of 

the Piceance Basin, on the basis of GIS data provided by the Colorado SHPO in 2011, is 2,059. 

The number of sites that correspond to each site type is shown in Table 3.9.2-1; not all sites have 

been categorized as a particular site type in the database. Duplicates are also inherent in this data 

since many sites have both prehistoric and historic components. For future project-specific 

analyses, the data for sites in a specific project area can be collected from data in the site forms 

on file at the Colorado SHPO. In addition, the numbers of sites that have been attributed 

eligibility status and entered into the database are presented in Table 3.9.2-2.19

 Cultural resource sensitivity maps for each of the oil shale basins were developed on the 

basis of the relationships of known prehistoric sites and soil families (O’Rourke et al. 2012). 

High-sensitivity areas correspond to lower elevations in the central and northern portions of the 

Piceance Basin. Areas in the middle and higher elevations in the southern half and western edge 

of the basin are considered areas of low site frequency. 

 

19 The cultural resource information obtained from the various historic preservation offices represents a snapshot in 

time of the information available. These data change daily as new information is collected and processed. All 

future projects requiring Section 106 review will have to complete a thorough investigation of existing site and 

survey data beyond that available strictly in the GIS records maintained by the SHPO. The data used for the 

large-scale production of the Class I Overview, completed as part of the PEIS, did not evaluate paper records of 

backlogged data or recent submittals that had not yet been entered digitally. Existing data, reviewed in this PEIS, 

do serve to provide a sample of the main types of sites that occur in the study area. 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-229 

3.9.3 Uinta Basin 

3.9.3.1 Prehistoric Context for 

Archaeological Sites, Features, 

and Structures 

 The cultural history of prehistoric 

populations in the Uinta Basin includes four major 

time periods: the Paleoindian Period (10,000 to 

6,000 B.C), the Archaic Period (6,000 B.C. to 

A.D. 500), the Formative Period (A.D. 500 to 1300), 

and the Protohistoric Period (also known as the 

Shoshonean or Numic Era) (A.D. 1300 to 1850). 

Each time period yields distinctive sets of artifacts 

and archaeological features. Large lanceolate points 

used for hunting big game, such as giant bison and 

mammoth, are characteristic artifacts of Paleoindian 

Period sites and are usually found as isolated 

artifacts or in association with later period sites. The 

Archaic era represents a shift in diet and settlement 

patterns from a highly mobile hunting lifestyle to a 

greater reliance on gathering wild plant foods and 

hunting smaller game. The discussion in 

Section 3.9.2.1 regarding the Formative Period in 

Colorado also generally applies. This period is when 

horticulture comes into practice, as well as widespread 

pottery use. Modeled clay figurines, rock art, and basketry 

are also part of the archaeological record. The lifestyle 

during this period is more sedentary, and semisubterranean 

pit-houses are being constructed. The Uintah Fremont, also 

discussed in Section 3.9.2.1, is a local variant of the 

Fremont tradition during this period that is also present in 

the Uinta Basin. The Protohistoric Period refers to the 

period when European influence and artifacts first make an 

impact on native populations, including the introduction of 

the horse. In the Uinta Basin, as in the Piceance Basin, the 

populations revert to a more Archaic hunting and gathering 

lifestyle and cease agricultural practices. Very little is 

known about this period in the Uinta Basin. The prehistoric 

context is described in greater detail in the Class I Cultural Resource Overview 

(O’Rourke et al. 2012) prepared in support of this PEIS. 

TABLE 3.9.2-1 Site Types of Known 

Archaeological Sites in the Piceance 

Basin, Colorado

Site Type 

Number 

of Sites 

Historic; architecture 65 

Historic; isolated feature 7 

Historic; isolated find 65 

Historic; road or trail 13 

Historic; all other site types 128 

Total historic sites and isolated finds 278 

Isolated feature 8 

Isolated find 1,033 

Open architecture 79 

Open camp 269 

Open lithic 284 

Rock art 3 

Shelter camp 9 

Stone quarry 

Other/Unknown 

1 

35 

Total prehistoric sites and isolated 

 features 

1,721 

 

No information 60 

TABLE 3.9.2-2 Eligibility Status 

of Known Archaeological Sites in 

the Piceance Basin, Colorado

Eligibility Status 

Number 

of Sites 

 

Listed 

Eligible 

1 

112 

Not eligible 1,690 

Eligibility undetermined 256 

Total number of sites 2,059 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-230 

3.9.3.2 Historic Context for Archaeological Sites, Features, and Structures 

 The historic context for the Uinta Basin is presented in the Class I Cultural Resource 

Overview (O’Rourke et al. 2012) and is summarized briefly here. Historic period sites in this 

region broadly follow the themes of early exploration and fur trade; ranching and settlement; 

and mining. The early history of the Uinta Basin is essentially the same as that for northwestern 

Colorado, regarding early Spanish exploration and the establishment of the fur trade 

(Section 3.9.2.2). Sites related to these activities are relatively rare, but at least one early 

trading post (Fort Davy Crockett) has been located and archaeologically excavated in the area. 

However, unlike other parts of the west, but similar to northwestern Colorado, the fur trade did 

not lead to settlement; it mostly led to further exploration and mapping in search of possible 

railroad routes through the area. The first Euroamerican settlement of the region coincides with 

the establishment of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation. A few small cattle ranches were 

established in the area, but these tended to stay close to the foothills of the Uinta Mountains in 

the northern portion of the basin. In addition, during the latter part of the nineteenth century 

Mormons began settling along the Green River. Irrigation was necessary to the survival of any 

farming practices in this arid region, resulting in the construction of a network of canals and 

reservoirs. Sheep raising also grew to be an important industry in the early part of the twentieth 

century. The mining of gilsonite and oil shale, as well as oil and gas production, are the other 

historic industries of note within the Uinta Basin. Evidence of these practices and the roads, 

pipelines, and rail lines that support them are scattered throughout the area. Several gilsoniterelated mining towns are now ghost towns. 

3.9.3.3 Surveys and Sites in the Study Area 

 In the most geologically prospective oil shale area of the Uinta Basin study area, a total 

of 3,651 different surveys occurred, according to GIS data obtained from the Utah SHPO in 

2011. These investigations are predominantly Class III intensive field surveys. Spatial analyses 

of the GIS data reveal that approximately 291,572 acres in the Uinta Basin have been subject to 

some survey. These acreage numbers underestimate the amount of land surveyed because they 

do not account for a number of linear surveys that have been conducted in the region; linear 

surveys of approximately 4,472 mi have also been conducted in the Uinta Basin. 

 The total number of recorded sites within the geologically prospective oil shale areas of 

the Uinta Basin, based on GIS data provided by the Utah SHPO in 2011, is 3,058. These sites are 

identified as having prehistoric and/or historic components tied to a particular period or group 

affiliation, unlike site data from Colorado and Wyoming, which are classified by site type or 

function. Details regarding prehistoric and protohistoric affiliation are not presented here. 

Duplicates are inherent in this data as many sites have both prehistoric and historic components; 

therefore, a site total is not meaningful and is not presented in Table 3.9.3-1. In addition, the 

numbers of sites that have been attributed eligibility status are presented in Table 3.9.3-2. There 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-231 

are many sites for which no data regarding site type or 

eligibility have been entered into the system.20

 Cultural resource sensitivity maps for each of the 

oil shale basins were developed on the basis of 

relationships of known prehistoric sites and soil families 

(O’Rourke et al. 2012). High-sensitivity areas correspond 

to the northwestern part of the Uinta Basin along a section 

of Green River and including adjacent uplands. Moderatesensitivity areas extend across the central part of the basin 

and include the lower reaches of the White River Valley. 

According to the analysis completed for the EIS, areas of 

low sensitivity occur in upland tracts, mostly away from 

water, in the western, northeastern, and southeastern parts 

of the Uinta Basin. 

3.9.4 Green River and Washakie Basins 

3.9.4.1 Prehistoric Context for Archaeological 

 Sites, Features, and Structures 

 The cultural history of prehistoric populations in 

southwestern Wyoming includes four major time periods: 

the Paleoindian Period (10,000 to 6,500 B.C), the Archaic 

Period (6,500 B.C. to A.D. 0), the Late Prehistoric Period 

(A.D. 0 to 1500), and the Protohistoric Period (A.D. 1500 

to 1800). Each time period yields distinctive sets of 

artifacts and archaeological features. Large lanceolate 

points used for hunting megafauna, such as giant bison and 

mammoth, are characteristic artifacts of Paleoindian Period 

sites and are usually found as isolated artifacts or in 

association with later period sites. Smaller dart points and 

early house-pits are characteristic of the subsequent and 

long-lived Archaic Period. The two main technological 

advances that mark the Late Prehistoric Period are the bow and arrow and the introduction of 

pottery, indicative of growing populations and a more sedentary (less mobile) lifestyle. The 

Protohistoric Period refers to the period when European influence and artifacts first made an 

 

20 The cultural resource information obtained from the various historic preservation offices represents a snapshot in 

time of the information available. These data change daily as new information is collected and processed. All 

future projects requiring Section 106 review will have to complete a thorough investigation of existing site and 

survey data beyond that available strictly in the GIS records maintained by the SHPO. The data used for the 

large-scale production of the Class I Overview, completed as part of the PEIS, did not evaluate paper records of 

backlogged data or recent submittals that had not yet been entered digitally. Existing data, reviewed in this PEIS, 

do serve to provide a sample of the main types of sites that occur in the study area.

TABLE 3.9.3-1 Cultural 

Affiliations of Known 

Archaeological Sites in the 

Uinta Basin, Utah 

Site Type 

Number of 

Sites 

 

Prehistoric 

Archaic 90 

Fremont 36 

Late Prehistoric 15 

Paleoindian 7 

Protohistoric 43 

Unknown/other 690 

No information available 9 

 

Historic 

European/American 694 

Ute/Paiute/Navajo 

Unknown Affiliation 

34 

47 

TABLE 3.9.3-2 Eligibility Status 

of Known Archaeological Sites in 

the Uinta Basin, Utah

Eligibility Status 

Number 

of Sites 

 

List/ Nominated 

Eligible/NR Quality 

20 

533 

Not eligible 1,050 

Eligibility undetermined 94 

Data not available 1,361 

Total number of sites 3,058 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-232 

impact on native populations, including the introduction of the horse. The prehistoric context is 

described in greater detail in the Class I Cultural Resource Overview (O’Rourke et al. 2012) 

prepared in support of this PEIS. 

3.9.4.2 Historic Context for Archaeological Sites, Features, and Structures 

 The historic context for southwestern Wyoming is presented in the Class I Cultural 

Resource Overview (O’Rourke et al. 2012) and is summarized briefly here. Significant historic 

period sites in southwestern Wyoming broadly follow some general themes, notably fur trade; 

settlement and transportation; ranching; and oil and coal mining. The area was heavily used by 

early fur trappers. Sites related to this activity are relatively rare (e.g., early trading posts, annual 

meeting, or rendezvous, locations; and individual trappers’ camps). However, the trails the 

trappers and Native American populations used were noted, and this information was passed 

along to others to subsequently form the main trails for westward expansion and migration. 

 The trail systems and the emigrant sites associated with these trails are a very important 

component of the history of this region. The Oregon Trail and its various cutoffs and deviations 

cut across a large portion of the Green River Basin; many of these trail segments have been 

determined significant historic properties. Portions of this trail system also coincide with other 

key events (establishment of Mormon settlement of Utah, California Gold Rush, and Pony 

Express) that result in numerous historic sites associated with these events (e.g., camps, stage 

stations, rock inscriptions, and wagon ruts). Similarly, the Overland, or Cherokee, Trail cuts 

across both the Washakie and Green River Basins. The first transcontinental railroad (Union 

Pacific) cuts across southern Wyoming following the Overland Trail route, as does the 

transcontinental Lincoln Highway, the first road constructed for automobile use in the state. 

Associated with these developments are tent towns, stage stations, wagon roads, and various 

small related sites identifiable by a scattering of historic artifacts. 

 Ranching was also a significant industry in southwestern Wyoming, especially once the 

railroad was established and livestock could be shipped. From the main east–west rail line, 

ranches spread north and south, up and down the Green River and its tributaries. Cattle raising 

provided the single greatest impetus to settlement away from the main line of the Union Pacific 

and continues to be economically significant to the state. Sheep raising was also an important 

factor in the settlement and economic development of Wyoming. Sheep ranching rendered 

semiarid land economically productive and served to broaden the economic base that led to the 

growth and development of regional towns. Conflicts between cattle and sheep ranchers in the 

1890s eventually were diminished as the open range was fenced, and as federal agencies later 

regulated the use of public range lands. Numerous homesteads and ranches have been recognized 

as historic sites in the Green River Basin. Several irrigation ditches have been identified as 

potential historic engineering structures. 

 Sites related to the history of mining coal deposits and exploiting oil seeps are also 

important to the history of the region. Many of the early development sites coincide with the 

development of the emigrant trails. When the Overland Trail was laid out, some stage stations 

along the route appear to have been sited near coal outcrops specifically so that fuel would have 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-233 

been available for the blacksmith shops and for general heating purposes. Later, the Union 

Pacific rail line was routed near these readily accessible coal seams, since the fuel was needed to 

power the locomotives. Outlying prospecting pits, old mine shafts, and abandoned camps are 

some of the physical reminders of historic early mining operations in the area. 

3.9.4.3 Surveys and Sites in the Study Area 

 Past archaeological investigations in the most geologically prospective oil shale area of 

the Green River Basin study area total 4,315, according to the Wyoming Cultural Records Office 

(WYCRO) database. In the Washakie Basin, 535 different survey blocks or linear segments 

underwent archaeological investigation (predominantly Class II sampling and Class III intensive 

field surveys). Spatial analyses of the GIS data reveal that approximately 139,222 acres in the 

Green River Basin and approximately 29,053 acres in the Washakie Basin have been subject to 

some survey. These acreage numbers underestimate the amount of land surveyed because they 

do not account for a number of linear surveys that have been conducted in the region. 

 The total number of recorded sites within the geologically prospective oil shale areas of 

the Green River and Washakie Basins based on GIS data provided by the Wyoming SHPO in 

2011 is 7,412. This total includes 6,465 sites in the Green River Basin and 947 sites in the 

Washakie Basin. A variety of different site types are represented. The number of sites that 

correspond to each site type is shown in Table 3.9.4-1. In addition, the numbers of sites that have 

been attributed eligibility status are presented in Table 3.9.4-2.21

 Cultural resource sensitivity maps for each of the oil shale basins were developed on the 

basis of relationships of known prehistoric sites and soil families (O’Rourke et al. 2012). Highsensitivity areas in the Green River Basin correspond to soils along the Green River and Black’s 

Fork and soils in open or somewhat broken terrain where sand dunes are present. Highsensitivity areas in the Washakie Basin correspond to soils at low elevations in the eastern part of 

the basin. Areas of moderate sensitivity cover most of the uplands in the Green River Basin and 

in the western third of the Washakie Basin. Low site densities occur in the most highly elevated 

terrain around the edges of the Green River Basin and the elevated ridge and dissected plateau in 

the central portion of the Washakie Basin. 

3.9.5 Special Tar Sand Areas in East-Central and Southeastern Utah 

 Most of the STSAs are located within or adjacent to the geologically prospective area for 

oil shale development in the Uinta Basin. For these areas, the prehistoric and historic context 

 

21 The cultural resource information obtained from the various historic preservation offices represents a snapshot in 

time. These data change daily as new information is collected and processed. All future projects requiring 

Section 106 review will have to complete a thorough investigation of existing site and survey data beyond that 

available strictly in the GIS records maintained by the SHPO. The data used for the large-scale production of the 

Class I Overview, completed as part of the PEIS, did not evaluate paper records of backlogged data or recent 

submittals that had not yet been entered digitally. 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-234 

TABLE 3.9.4-1 Site Types of Known Archaeological Sites in the Green River and 

Washakie Basins, Wyoming 

Number of Sites 

Site Type 

In Green River 

Basin 

In Washakie 

Basin 

Total in Wyoming 

Study Area 

 

Historic 

 Exploration 1 0 1 

 General 207 50 257 

 Irrigation 11 0 11 

 Mining 3 1 4 

 Ranching 124 18 142 

 Transportation 272 28 300 

 Urban 13 0 13 

 

Prehistoric 

 Activity area 64 60 124 

 Habitation 2,810 155 2,965 

 Lithic 2,537 432 2,963 

 Open camp 333 193 526 

 Speciala 70 10 80 

 

Additional Site Types 

 Historic Native American 2 0 2 

 Human remains/burials/cemeteries 6 0 6 

 Unknown/no information 18 0 18 

 

Total number of sites 6,465 947 7,412 

a The category “Special” includes rock alignments, cairns, stone circles, medicine wheels, rock 

art, rock shelters, buffalo and antelope kill sites, and ceremonial sites. 

TABLE 3.9.4-2 Eligibility Status of Known Archaeological Sites in the 

Green River and Washakie Basins, Wyoming 

Number of Sites 

Eligibility Status 

In Green River 

Basin 

In Washakie 

Basin 

Total in 

Wyoming Study 

Area 

 

Eligible 1,431 217 1,718 

Not eligible 3,339 316 3,655 

Eligibility undetermined 1,682 344 2,026 

Data not available 13 0 13 

Total number of sites 6,465 947 7,412 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-235 

presented in Sections 3.9.3.1 and 3.9.3.2, respectively, are applicable. The following is a 

summary of the contexts for those STSAs that are located farther south in central and southern 

Utah. Much of the discussion presented here is summarized from a highly relevant previous 

archaeological study conducted for a tar sands project in the 1980s (Tipps 1988). The prehistoric 

and historic context is described in greater detail in the Class I Cultural Resource Overview 

(O’Rourke et al. 2012) prepared in support of this PEIS. 

3.9.5.1 Prehistoric Context for Archaeological Sites, Features, and Structures 

 The cultural history of prehistoric populations in central and southern Utah includes 

four major time periods: the Paleoindian Period (10,000 to 6,000 B.C.), the Archaic Period 

(6,000 B.C. to A.D. 500), the Late Prehistoric Period (A.D. 500 to 1300), and the Protohistoric 

Period (also known as the Shoshonean or Numic Era) (A.D. 1300 to 1850). Each time period 

yields distinctive sets of artifacts and archaeological features. Large lanceolate points used for 

hunting big game, such as bison and mammoth, are characteristic artifacts of Paleoindian Period 

sites, and are usually found as isolated artifacts or in association with later period sites. Isolated 

Paleoindian points have been recorded in the vicinity of the southern STSAs. The Archaic era 

represents a shift in diet and settlement patterns from a highly mobile hunting lifestyle to a 

greater reliance on gathering wild plant foods and hunting smaller game. Several rockshelters 

and caves in the region have been excavated and have greatly added to the regional 

understanding of the Archaic Period in terms of artifact typologies and chronologies. 

 The Late Prehistoric Period is when horticulture comes into practice, as well as 

widespread pottery use and use of the bow and arrow. Modeled clay figurines, rock art, and 

basketry are also part of the archaeological record. The lifestyle during this period is more 

sedentary, and storage and living structures (both pit dwellings and masonry structures) are being 

constructed. There is a great deal of archaeological debate concerning the various cultural 

traditions that have been proposed and surrounding the presence of both Fremont and Anasazi 

characteristics at many sites, so this description may be overly simplified. The San Rafael 

Fremont is a local variant of the Fremont cultural tradition found in Central Utah dating to this 

period; this tradition is distinct from the Uintah Fremont variant present in northeastern Utah and 

northwestern Colorado. The primary distinctions are the presence of stone-lined pit dwellings 

and adobe masonry structures and the pottery type; caves and overhangs were also used for 

storage and habitation. The Sunnyside and San Rafael Swell STSAs are located within the area 

considered to be associated with the San Rafael Fremont. Another cultural tradition of the Late 

Prehistoric Period that is present in the region is the Anasazi tradition linked to the Pueblo 

groups. This very complicated archaeological tradition with its many subperiods is used widely 

to describe the cultural chronology of the greater Southwest region of the United States. The 

Virgin, Mesa Verde, and Kayenta Anasazi are local variants of the Anasazi cultural tradition 

present in the southern portion of the state. The Circle Cliffs area is in a transition zone between 

the San Rafael Fremont and Virgin and Kayenta Anasazi cultures. The area of White Canyon and 

Tar Sand Triangle is most closely linked with the Kayenta and Mesa Verde Anasazi, although 

Fremont rock art is also common in the area. Anasazi presence does not appear to be continuous 

during the Late Prehistoric Period in the vicinity of these southern STSAs. The Protohistoric 

Period refers to the period when European influence and artifacts first make an impact on native 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-236 

populations, including the introduction of the horse. The inhabitants of the region are primarily 

Numic-speaking groups ancestral to the Ute and Paiute, although there is some evidence of 

Navajo presence near the White Canyon area. 

3.9.5.2 Historic Context for Archaeological Sites, Features, and Structures 

 Historic period sites in this region broadly follow the themes of early exploration and fur 

trade, ranching and settlement, and mining. Early exploration in the region was primarily by the 

Spanish, followed by Euroamerican trappers and traders. Prior to Euroamerican settlement, the 

Old Spanish Trail was the main route through the region used by trappers, traders, Indians, and 

slave traders (people who peddled captured Paiute women and children). Early settlement of the 

area was initiated by the arrival of the Mormons in Utah. Much of the early settlement focused 

on raising cattle and sheep. Concurrently with Mormon settlement, government exploration in 

search of possible routes for a transcontinental railroad and mail delivery was also conducted 

throughout the region. The area became the backdrop for the Black Hawk War, where 

settlements were raided by Utes, Paiutes, and Navajos. In addition, the area was known for cattle 

rustling and thievery in the late nineteenth century. Butch Cassidy and the Wild Bunch are 

known to have hidden away in this region, and several of their presumed escape routes follow 

old cattle and Indian trails. By the turn of the century, there was a shift in the economy from 

farming and ranching in Central Utah to coal mining coincident with the availability of the 

Denver and Rio Grande Western rail line. Oil was also drilled near the Green River. To the 

south, gold, silver, and copper mining became popular for a short time, followed by the mining 

of radioactive ore (e.g., uranium and radium). Near White Canyon, there was a mill constructed 

to process uranium ore from one of the richest uranium mines on the Colorado Plateau. A small 

settlement was established at the mouth of White Canyon, near the mill, to support the mining 

activities. In the twentieth century, large tracts of public lands were set aside for reclamation 

projects and recreational areas, including the construction of dams and reservoirs and the 

establishment of several National Monuments and National Parks. 

3.9.5.3 Surveys and Sites in the Study Area 

 Within the 11 STSAs, a total of 883 different cultural resource surveys occurred, 

according to the Utah SHPO data obtained in 2011. These investigations are predominantly 

Class III intensive field surveys. Spatial analyses of the GIS data reveal that more than 

140,927 acres within the STSAs have been subject to some survey. These acreage numbers 

underestimate the amount of land surveyed because they do not account for a number of linear 

and point surveys that have been conducted in the region; linear surveys of more than 1,813 mi 

have also been conducted within the 11 STSAs. 

 The total number of recorded sites within the 11 STSAs, based on GIS data provided by 

the Utah SHPO in 2011, is 2,587 sites. These sites are identified as having prehistoric and/or 

historic components tied to a particular period or group affiliation. Details regarding the 

prehistoric and protohistoric affiliation are not presented here. Many sites have both prehistoric 

and historic components. Cultural affiliations are listed in Table 3.9.5-1. The number of sites that 
TABLE 3.9.5-1 Site Types of Known Archaeological Sites in the 11 Special Tar Sand Areas, Utah Cultural Affiliation Number of Sites in Each STSA Argyle Canyon Asphalt Ridge Circle Cliffs Hill Creek P.R. Spring Pariette Raven Ridge San Rafael Swell Sunnys

Paleoindian 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 Archaic 0 1 15 18 9 2 0 0 14 Late Prehistoric 0 0 0 5 1 1 0 0 2 Fremont 0 1 5 20 11 2 3 3 127 

Anasazi/Puebloan 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Numic 0 0 10 6 0 1 1 0 1 

Ute/Paiute/Shoshoni/Algonquin 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 3 Unknown Aboriginal 0 13 58 5 85 82 18 1 225 

European/American 1 6 16 158 21 15 3 10 35 Historic Ute/Paiute 0 0 0 25 2 0 0 0 0 Unknown Historic 0 1 1 33 6 1 0 0 8 Multicomponent Prehistoric/Historic 0 4 11 17 8 4 4 2 10 

No data 0 6 65 271 218 103 3 77 372 

Total 1 32 179 601 370 212 32 93 797 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-238 

1 have been attributed eligibility status is presented in Table 3.9.5-2. It should be noted that there 

2 are many sites for which no data regarding site type or eligibility have been entered into the 

3 system. In addition, some of the sites are the same as those recorded in the Uinta Basin because 

of the study area overlap. 4 22

 5 

6 Cultural resource sensitivity maps for many of the STSAs were developed on the basis of 

7 relationships of known prehistoric sites and soil families (O’Rourke et al. 2012). However, 

8 complete sensitivity maps of all of the STSAs could not be developed from the soils data. 

9 Factors such as STSAs located within single soil families, archaeological surveys within STSAs 

10 limited to single soil families, and site frequencies that in some cases were not statistically 

11 different than expected for random distribution affected results for Argyle Canyon, Asphalt 

12 Ridge, Circle Cliffs, Raven Ridge, Sunnyside, and Tar Sand Triangle STSAs. Sensitivity maps 

13 were generated for the remaining six STSAs on the basis of nonrandom associations between soil 

14 families and site frequency. High-sensitivity areas composed large proportions of Argyle 

15 Canyon, Pariette, Sunnyside, and White Canyon. Moderate-sensitivity areas covered significant 

16 portions of Circle Cliffs, Hill Creek, P.R. Spring, and San Rafael. Low-sensitivity areas occupied 

17 major portions of Argyle Canyon, Asphalt Ridge, Hill Creek, P.R. Spring, Raven Ridge, 

18 Sunnyside, and Tar Sand Triangle STSAs. The specific soil families are presented in 

19 O’Rourke et al. (2012). 

 20 

 21 

22 3.10 INDIAN TRIBAL CONCERNS 

 23 

24 As with other ethnic groups, Native Americans often express concern for preserving their 

25 traditional lifeways, language, and religion. This is often expressed as concern for the 

26 preservation of and access to sites, resources, and places important to their heritage. These 

27 include, but are not limited to, traditional cultural properties (e.g., archaeological sites, funerary 

28 objects, culturally important animal species, medicinal plants, and sacred landscapes). Tribes 

29 also share areas of concern with the population as a whole (e.g., water rights, mineral rights, 

30 environmental protection, and economic development). For example, the Ute Indian Tribe 

31 (Uintah and Ouray Reservation) expressed concerns over effects on water quality and the 

32 possibility of subsidence from oil shale and tar sands development (Loosle 2012). Concerns 

33 specific to tribes must be identified by the tribes (Ott 2010). Government-to-government 

34 consultation with the tribes is essential for understanding the affected environment from a tribal 

35 perspective. Since tribes often see the world as an interconnected whole, in many cases it 

 36 

 37 

 

22 The cultural resource information obtained from the various historic preservation offices represents a snapshot in 

time of the information available. These data change daily as new information is collected and processed. All 

future projects requiring Section 106 review will have to complete a thorough investigation of existing site and 

survey data beyond that available strictly in the GIS records maintained by the SHPO. The data used for the 

large-scale production of the Class I Overview, completed as part of the PEIS, did not evaluate paper records of 

backlogged data or recent submittals that had not yet been entered digitally. Existing data, reviewed in this PEIS, 

do serve to provide a sample of the main types of sites that occur in the study area. 
TABLE 3.9.5-2 Eligibility Status of Known Archaeological Sites in the 11 Special Tar Sand Areas, Utah Number of Sites in Each STSA Eligibility Status Argyle Canyon Asphalt Ridge Circle Cliffs Hill Creek P.R. Spring Pariette Raven Ridge San Rafael Swell Sunnyside Ta

San

Trian

Listed/Nominated 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 18 1 Eligible/NR Quality 0 8 49 142 45 53 6 8 299 61 Not eligible 1 18 58 356 91 71 19 10 43 77 Eligibility undetermined 0 1 9 6 15 1 4 1 49 7 Data not available 0 5 63 96 217 87 3 73 388 105 Total number of sites 1 32 179 601 370 212 32 93 797 251 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-240 

is difficult, if not impossible, to place boundaries on locations of traditional significance. Where 

boundaries could be defined, tribal members may not be willing to disclose locational 

information for a variety of reasons. Cultural sensitivity to the need to protect culturally 

important resources is required during consultation. Types of valued traditional resources may 

include, but are not limited to, archaeological sites, burial sites, traditional harvest areas, trails, 

certain prominent geological features that may have spiritual significance (i.e., sacred 

landscapes), and viewsheds from sacred or culturally important locations (including all of the 

above). An ethnographic overview for the areas considered for leasing in this PEIS has recently 

been prepared that provides a general description of the lifeways and traditional property types of 

Native Americans who either currently live or previously lived in the region covered by this 

PEIS (Bengston 2007). In addition, federally recognized tribes with current or historic ties to the 

area have been contacted. Information from ethnographic overview has been summarized and 

updated in Sections 3.10.1, 3.10.2, and 3.10.3, along with general information provided by the 

tribes. Exact locations of sacred and culturally important sites are confidential and are not 

provided here. 

3.10.1 Piceance Basin 

 The Piceance Basin lies within the traditional range of Numic-speaking tribes. The Ute 

Indians came to dominate what is now western Colorado, but the Eastern Shoshone were also 

present in northwestern Colorado (Baker et al. 2007). Ute oral tradition indicates an extensive 

presence of Ute people in Colorado and Utah and northwestern New Mexico since at least the 

sixteenth century. The Utes organized and identified themselves according to band membership. 

This membership appears to have been fairly fluid and interchangeable (Ott 2010). 

Approximately nine different Ute bands are thought to have inhabited the three-state study area 

(Bengston 2007). The area was likely used by all of the Ute bands at one time or another for 

hunting, gathering, trading, or socializing. Seasonal migrations of Ute families involved traveling 

to deserts and valleys in the winter and up into the mountains in summer to meet their 

subsistence needs. Ute families relied on hunting, particularly of big game, and the gathering of a 

wide variety of plant foods for subsistence. Families would come together at certain times of the 

year for communal hunting, ceremonial dances, or other social activities. Campsites or seasonal 

village sites often included tipis borrowed from their plains neighbors, as well as conical wooden 

and brush shelters called wickiups (Martin et al. 2005). The introduction of the horse allowed the 

Utes to venture more widely and to hunt buffalo on the plains. 

 The Shoshone way of life was similar to that of the Utes. They practiced a seasonal round 

of hunting and gathering, coming together to winter in the Wind and Green River Valleys, then 

dispersing widely, to places likely including the Piceance basin, and coming together again to 

venture on to the plains to hunt bison. By the mid-18th century they had adopted the horse 

(Shimkin 1986a), raiding the plains with their Comanche allies (Shimkin 1986b). Initially 

operating as independent family hunter gatherers and later as trappers for the fur trade, by the 

mid-19th century pressure from plains tribes retreating from westward American expansion led 

the Shoshone to coalese into a self-aware tribal unit under Chief Washakie. On their seasonal 

round they constructed wooden shelters similar to Ute wickiups. Today, the Eastern Shoshone 

share the Wind River Reservation in Wyoming with the Arapahoe, former enemies. 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-241 

 Today, Ute bands are organized into four distinct tribal entities, located primarily on 

three reservations. The Ute Indian Tribe occupies the Uintah and Ouray Reservation in eastern 

Utah. The Southern Ute Tribe lives on the Southern Ute Reservation, and the Ute Mountain Ute 

Tribe lives on the Ute Mountain Ute Indian Reservation, both in western Colorado. The White 

Mesa Band of the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, located in southeastern Utah, is a semiautonomous 

entity that is part of the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe. Of these the Ute Indian Tribe is closest to the 

Piceance Basin; however, since Ute band membership was fluid, potentially all modern Ute 

tribes could have historic ties to the basin. The BLM has reached out to all four Ute tribal entities 

seeking input regarding the development of oil shale and tar sands. The three Ute tribes have 

expressed concerns over the effects of development upon the remains of wickiup sites in their 

traditional Colorado homeland. As discussed in Section 3.10.5, the BLM has met with the three 

tribes and conducted field visits to wickiup sites with tribal cultural authorities. 

 Traditional cultural properties are not distinguished in the site data files of the Colorado 

SHPO. Their significance must be defined from the point of view of the culture with which they 

are associated. While some archaeological sites or rock art panels listed in the database may be 

considered traditional cultural properties by the tribes, a traditional cultural property need not 

include anthropogenic materials. In the words of Betsy Chapoose of the Uintah and Ouray 

Reservation, “the Utes consider the air, the water, the view, all those things, the whole 

environment, as cultural resources” (Ott 2010). The presence of traditional cultural properties 

may be based more on specific geographic features. Culturally important places or landscapes 

could include religious sites associated with oral traditions and stories; traditional gathering 

areas; quarries; trails; offering areas; game drives; eagle traps; culturally scarred trees; and other 

use sites. They may also include constructed features including cairns, wickiups, brush fences, 

tree platforms, altars and shrines; vision quest group ceremonial sites, such as sweat lodges and 

ceremonial dance grounds; ancestral habitation and camp sites; burials and reburials; and 

observatories and calendar sites (Bengston 2007; Ott 2010). Identification of these resources 

occurs through government-to-government consultation with the contacted federally recognized 

tribes and a careful and thorough ethnographic and ethnohistoric assessment 

(e.g., Bengston 2007). 

 A recent evaluation of wickiup sites in the Yellow Creek area of Rio Blanco County has 

determined that while most sites were likely Ute sites, some may have been constructed by the 

Shoshone. The material culture of the two groups is so similar that the builders of the sites could 

not be distinguished based on material remains alone (Martin and Miller 2009a,b). Some could 

date back to the end of the 18th century, before the Utes came to dominate this part of Colorado 

(Martin et al. 2010). Tribal authorities from the Ute tribes have requested that Eastern Shoshone 

be included along the Utes when evaluating wickiup sites in the Piceance Basin (Ott 2010). The 

Eastern Shoshone were invited by the BLM to participate in field trips to wickiup sites in Rio 

Blanco County; however, a tribal representative was unable to attend. 

3.10.2 Uinta Basin 

 The Unita Basin is located in Utah due west of the Piceance Basin. It is likewise within 

the traditional range of the Utes. The ethnohistoric context presented in Section 3.10.1 is 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-242 

therefore also applicable to the Uinta Basin. The Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray 

Reservation has identified an area of tribal lands south of the Grand County–Uintah County 

border as pristine wilderness that included sacred hunting grounds (Loosle 2012). The tribe has 

placed this area off limits to all mineral exploration. However, the tribe has expressed some 

interest in development of oil shale and tar sands resources on split estate reservation lands 

within the Hill Creek Extension of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation where the tribe owns the 

surface. The tribe requests that they be consulted prior to offering leases for any split estate 

parcel on reservation lands (Natchees 2007). 

 Traditional cultural properties are not indicated as such in the site data files of the Utah 

SHPO; however, in some cases the possible cultural affiliation of a site is presented as part of the 

prehistoric-historic site categorization. Some archaeological sites recorded in the database may 

be considered traditional cultural properties by the tribes. As discussed in Section 3.10.1, 

traditional cultural properties include more than archaeological sites. Identification of these 

places occurs through government-to-government consultation with the contacted federally 

recognized tribes and a careful and thorough ethnographic and ethnohistoric assessment. Several 

previous ethnographic overviews have been completed for this region in Utah (Bengston 2007). 

3.10.3 Green River and Washakie Basins 

 The Green River and Washakie Basins lie predominantly within the traditional range of 

the Eastern Shoshone, although the Utes may also have occasionally exploited the area 

(Bengston 2007). Eastern Shoshone territory covered most of present-day western Wyoming 

and parts of northeastern Utah and northwestern Colorado. An even larger range of land was 

used for hunting buffalo. The Eastern Shoshone generally wintered along the Green River 

(Bengston 2007). The Eastern Shoshones tended to form larger, highly militaristic groups or 

bands (Shimkin 1986b). This was likely because of their greater dependence on the buffalo and 

the more frequent occurrence of warfare with the other Plains tribes. However, membership in 

the various bands was fluid and changeable as with other Shoshone bands (Bengston 2007; 

Shimkin 1947, 1986b). 

 The lifeways of the Shoshone bands varied according to their environment and whether 

or not they had horses. The bands that depended on horse and buffalo hunting, like their Plains 

counterparts, generally lived in Plains-style tepees. Their subsistence lifeways depended more on 

hunting and fishing than on plant gathering. Those bands living near major rivers subsisted 

primarily on salmon and other fish. The Eastern Shoshone depended mostly on faunal resources 

supplemented with berries, roots, seeds, and wild greens (Shimkin 1986b; Bengston 2007). 

 The Ute heartland lies in southeastern Colorado; however, by the mid-1600s the Utes had 

acquired horses and had migrated into northern Colorado and Utah and, according to Ute oral 

tradition, possibly southwestern Wyoming. The Utes also moved eastward into the Great Plains 

and adopted a plains lifestyle of buffalo hunting and living in tepees. Northern Arapaho also may 

have made use of lands in the study area, but there is less documented evidence of this. The 

Northern Arapaho territory expanded into eastern and northern Wyoming and Kansas from 

eastern North Dakota and Minnesota after the Arapahos began using horses in the early 1700s. 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-243 

The Arapahos specialized in big game hunting and supplemented their diet with roots, berries, 

fruits, nuts, and tubers (Bengston 2007). 

 The Northern Arapaho and Northwestern Band of the Shoshone Nation did not choose to 

consult regarding the present project. The Eastern Shoshone expressed an initial interest in 

participating as a cooperating agency and were sent an MOU to enable that. However, they chose 

not to sign and return the MOU. Attempts by the BLM to schedule a meeting with the Eastern 

Shoshone Business Council were not successful. Earlier, the Eastern Shoshone and Northern 

Arapaho met with the BLM during the preparation of the 2008 PEIS. While one tribal 

representative expressed the view that all land is sacred, most of the discussion centered on how 

cultural resources would be identified and assessed during lease sales and the process for 

providing information on tribal concerns to the BLM. No specific resources of concern were 

identified. The Northwestern Band of the Shoshone Nation communicated that the tribe had 

interest in certain areas that might be affected by the proposed action, but did not identify the 

areas. 

 Traditional cultural properties are not indicated in the site data files of the WYCRO. 

Although some archaeological sites recorded in the WYCRO database may be considered 

traditional cultural properties by the tribes, such as some of the burials, cairns, rock alignments, 

and rock art sites, as discussed Section 3.10.1, many traditional cultural properties and other 

resources important to tribes may not contain archaeological materials. Identification of these 

resources occurs through government-to-government consultation with the relevant federally 

recognized tribes and a careful and thorough ethnographic and ethnohistoric assessment. An 

ethnohistoric overview of the area was conducted in 2007 (Bengston 2007). To date, no specific 

properties have been identified (Bengston 2007). 

3.10.4 Special Tar Sands Areas in East-Central and Southeastern Utah 

 The STSAs are scattered across the traditional ranges of the Utes and Paiutes and in 

areas of interest to the Navajo and Puebloan tribes. The ethnohistoric context presented in 

Section 3.10.1 is applicable for several of the STSAs within or adjacent to the Uinta Basin. As 

discussed in Section 3.10.2, the Ute Indian Tribe has expressed some interest in development of 

oil shale and tar sands resources on split estate tribal lands within the Hill Creek Extension of the 

Uintah and Ouray Reservation. More southerly STSAs are located in areas of possible interest to 

Paiute, Navajo, and Puebloan tribes. Southern Paiute bands ranged at least as far east as the 

Colorado River (Kelly and Fowler 1986). Numic speakers like their Ute neighbors, they lived in 

highly mobile bands, hunting, gathering, and farming following a seasonal round. They favored 

semipermanent campsites at the bases of scarps or lower slopes, near water sources and juniper 

stands. The traditional Southern Paiute bands closest to the STSAs were the Paguitch, 

Kaparowits, and Antarianunts. Today’s Kaibab Band includes descendants of these groups, as do 

Paiute Bands living farther west (Bengston 2007). 

 Archaeological evidence suggests that the Athapaskan-speaking Navajo are relative 

newcomers to the area. While the Navajo Reservation extends into southeastern Utah, there is 

little documented evidence of Navajo occupation of the tar sands study area, although Navajo 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-244 

burials have been reported as far north as Monticello, Utah. Modern Puebloan tribes such as the 

Hopi, Zuni, and the Tewa speakers claim cultural affiliation with Fremont, Archaic, and 

Paleoindian archaeological cultures, seeing them as their ancestors (see Section 3.9) 

(Bengston 2007). In contacts made during the preparation of the 2008 PEIS, the Hopi expressed 

interest in eastern Utah as far north as Price. The Pueblos of Laguna, Nambe, and Zia in New 

Mexico, while identifying no resources of current interest, requested that they be notified if 

archaeological or human remains were encountered during surveys and development. 

 Traditional cultural properties are not indicated as such in the site data files of the Utah 

SHPO; however, in some cases the possible cultural affiliation of a site is presented as part of the 

prehistoric-historic site categorization. Some archaeological sites recorded in the database may 

be considered traditional cultural properties by the tribes. As discussed in Section 3.10.1, 

traditional cultural properties and other resources important to tribes include more than 

archaeological sites. The Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah included culturally important plants, 

animals, springs, and other places of cultural significance (Martineau 2006). Both the Kaibab 

Band of Paiute Indians and the Navajo Nation identified the Henry Mountains, located between 

the Circle Cliffs and Tar Sand Triangle STSAs, as sacred. Identification of these resources 

occurs through government-to-government consultation with the contacted federally recognized 

tribes and a careful and thorough ethnographic and ethnohistoric assessment. Several previous 

ethnographic overviews have been completed for this region in Utah (Bengston 2007). 

3.10.5 Summary of Tribal Consultation 

 The BLM developed a process to offer specific consultation opportunities to “directly and 

substantially affected” tribal entities, as required under the provisions of E.O. 13175, and to 

Indian tribes as defined under 36 CFR 800.2(c)(2). Starting in July 2011, 25 federally recognized 

tribes that are located in or that have historical or cultural ties to the three-state study area were 

contacted by mail by the three BLM State Directors. These letters provided notification of the 

BLM’s intention to take a fresh look at land use allocation decisions regarding the management 

of oil shale and tar sands resources made in 2008. The BLM has followed up with additional 

letters, e-mails, telephone calls to, and meetings with tribes who have expressed a wish to 

continue government-to-government consultation. Table 7.2 1 lists by state the tribes that were 

contacted and describes the status of the ongoing consultations with each tribe. Once the Draft 

PEIS was completed (BLM 2012b), a second mailing was sent to all federally recognized tribes 

with interests in the area under consideration. Follow-up meetings, discussions, and field visits to 

potentially important resources took place after the Draft PEIS was issued. Two tribes (the Hopi 

and Eastern Shoshone) expressed an initial interest in consultation or involvement with the BLM 

for this project, and one Navajo Chapter (Navajo Mountain) requested additional information. 

The BLM followed up with all three tribes, providing information about the project. Two tribes 

(the Pueblo of Santa Clara and the Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah) have indicated that further 

consultation is not needed. The remaining 10 tribes (Kaibab Paiute Tribe, Northern Arapaho 

Tribe, Northwestern Band of the Shoshone Nation, Pueblo of Laguna, Pueblo of Nambe, Pueblo 

of Zia, Pueblo of Zuni, San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe, Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, and White 

Mesa Band of the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe) and 7 Navajo chapters (Aneth, Dennehotso, Mexican 

Water, Oljato, Red Mesa, Teec Nos Pos, and Window Rock) have yet to respond to the BLM’s 

request for consultation. 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-245 

 On March 21, 2012, the BLM held a consultation meeting with the Tribal Historic 

Preservation Officer and cultural representative of the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe to discuss the 

Colorado portion of the project area. They expressed concerns with the protection of wickiup 

sites and the cultural landscape under all alternatives. Particular tribal concerns were identified 

with the Yellow Creek area in Rio Blanco County, Colorado. They could not place a physical 

boundary around the cultural landscape without seeing the area and wanted input from the 

cultural representatives of the Southern Ute Indian Tribe, the Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah & 

Ouray Reservation, and the Eastern Shoshone Tribe in defining this boundary. A face-to-face 

consultation meeting was requested with the aforementioned tribes to include a site visit to 

wickiup sites in the Yellow Creek area. 

 The BLM set up a site visit and consultation meeting on May 2, 2012, in Meeker, 

Colorado. Only Betsy Chapoose, the cultural representative from the Ute Indian Tribe of the 

Uintah & Ouray Reservation, was able to participate. Clifford Duncan, a traditional elder from 

the Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah & Ouray Reservation, visited the area on May 24, 2012. 

Separate site visits and consultation meetings were held on June 6, 2012, and August 1, 2012, for 

cultural representatives of the Southern Ute Indian Tribe and the Ute Mountain Ute Indian Tribe, 

respectively. The Tribal Historic Preservation Officer for the Eastern Shoshone Tribe was invited 

to all the meetings but was unable to participate. 

 The purpose of the site visits and consultation meetings was to view the landscape of the 

overall area, to inspect a few representative examples of wickiup sites, to discuss the appropriate 

means of protection for these sites, and to identify a protection boundary around them. The 

BLM’s intent is to work with the tribes to assure that land management activities consider and 

protect places of traditional religious and cultural importance. 

 The wickiup sites and the surrounding cultural landscape have traditional religious and 

cultural importance to the three Ute tribes and the Eastern Shoshone Tribe. Betsy Chapoose 

stated that their significance must be defined from the point of view of the culture with which 

they are associated, “the Utes consider the air, the water, the view, all of those things, the whole 

environment, as cultural resources” (Ott 2010). All of the Ute cultural authorities visiting 

wickiup sites in Colorado suggested that the sites need to be seen as part of a larger landscape 

that includes topography and associated plant and animal communities that would have provided 

traditional resources. They reflect the indigenous culture. 

 The consultations indicated that wickiup sites were temporary in use, primarily for 

hunting and for seeking refuge from military authorities for anywhere from a few days to as long 

as a month. Some structures may have served as menstrual huts. The structures were left 

standing and were reused. The structures were used to protect the inhabitants from bad and cold 

weather; temporary brush structures were used at other times. Brush fences are a resource of 

interest because of their association with moving wildlife during hunting. 

 The protection of the wickiup sites was described in various ways. One needs to look at 

the landscape, and not just a circle around a site. All agreed that an avoidance area is needed 

around each site. They recommended distances ranging from 100 ft to 500 m, and another 

recommended no preferred distance. One suggestion was to avoid the site, so that the 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-246 

development was not visible from the site. All of the tribes agreed that where a concentration of 

wickiup structures exists as a village, a protection buffer around the village be established. These 

authorities would like to have these aboveground structures preserved from harm by 

development, but destruction by natural phenomena such as lightning was natural and not 

objectionable. Long-term reclamation of the development projects was also mentioned as a 

possible mitigation measure. 

 The Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation also expressed concerns 

regarding developments that would directly affect their reservation in the Uinta Basin 

(Natchees 2007). The Ute Indian Tribe also discussed the leasing of split estate lands on their 

reservation. Interaction with the Ute Indian Tribe is ongoing. 

 The concerns raised during consultation during the development of the PEIS will be 

incorporated into any future leasing discussions. No specific leasing actions are part of the 

current action and therefore none of the resources or issues identified by the tribes will be 

affected by the current action. As described in Section 3.9, future consultation would occur when 

a specific lease is proposed under the program. Additional inventory and studies would be 

undertaken on any proposed lease area in order to take cultural landscapes, wickiups, and other 

issues raised by the tribes into consideration before a lease would be granted. 

 The BLM will continue to provide consultation opportunities for interested tribes and will 

continue to keep all tribal entities informed about the NEPA process for the PEIS. In addition, 

the BLM will continue to implement government-to-government consultation on a case-by-case 

basis for site-specific oil shale and tar sands resource development projects. (See Appendix L for 

copies of the correspondence.) 

3.11 SOCIOECONOMICS 

3.11.1 Past Oil Shale Development 

 Although small quantities of oil shale were produced between 1915 and 1925, with 

additional exploration activities occurring in the 1950s, major attempts to develop oil shale 

resources did not occur until the early 1970s with the imposition of the Middle East oil embargo 

and the resultant attempt to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil supplies. The federal 

prototype leasing program begun in 1974 attracted bids from a number of companies. The 

Blanco Oil Shale Project on Yellow Creek south of Rangely in Colorado was started by Gulf Oil 

on tract C-a with the aim of producing 50,000 bbl/day by 1987, while TOSCO and Atlantic 

Richfield leased land on tract C-b, with both projects planning to use in situ processing to 

produce 57,000 bbl/day by 1982 (Lamm and McCarthy 1982). Sites U-a and U-b in Utah were 

also leased at this time by Sun Oil and Phillips Petroleum. In addition to planned developments 

on federal land, during this period, oil companies also bought land holdings on private land, with 

14 companies purchasing land in the Piceance Basin by 1979. The largest development on 

private land was the Colony Project, begun by Atlantic Richfield, Shell, Ashland, Cleveland 

Cliffs, and TOSCO in the early 1970s. Using room-and-pillar mining and surface retorting, the 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-247 

project extended from Parachute Creek to the Roan Plateau and produced 800 bbl/day by 1972, 

with 50,000 bbl/day planned by 1985. The Paraho Development Company also established a 

project using surface retorting in the U.S. Naval Oil Shale Reserve west of Rifle (Lamm and 

McCarthy 1982). 

 Despite the financial commitment by private companies, and the willingness of the 

federal government to lease lands for oil shale development, none of the projects begun in the 

1970s were successful, and by 1976 a number of companies had withdrawn from the federal 

leasing program. Despite inflation in world oil markets following the 1973 Organization of 

Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) oil embargo, no major technological breakthrough had 

been made to make oil shale viable on a commercial scale. In addition to economic and 

technological considerations, significant unresolved legal difficulties had emerged over title 

disputes, unpatented mining claims, and disputes over Ute Indian land claims (Lamm and 

McCarthy 1982). By the early 1980s, following the 1980 oil embargo, the political and economic 

environment for the development of synthetic fuels changed dramatically. The passing of the 

Energy Security Act of 1980 was intended to decrease U.S. dependency on foreign oil, and 

included a 5-year $19 billion program of incentives to encourage private industry to build 

synfuel plants in order to produce 500,000 bbl/day by 1987, and 1 million bbl/day by 1992. 

Although the Act provided massive incentives for development and significantly reduced the 

risks of development for private companies, the plan did not receive widespread political support 

in the western states, with concerns over states’ rights, ethical questions surrounding support for 

energy companies, water rights, environmental laws regarding strip mining, water and air 

pollution, and historic preservation (Lamm and McCarthy 1982). 

 In spite of serious doubts from western politicians, various companies, including 

TOSCO, which had previously invested in the Colony Project with Exxon, received loan 

guarantees from the federal government, and numerous subsidy applications were made by other 

companies. As a result of the Energy Security Act, several new projects were started in 

Colorado, including the Chevron Clear Creek project, which planned to produce 100,000 bbl/day 

by 1994, and the Mobil project, which aimed for 100,000 bbl/day (Lamm and McCarthy 1982). 

In Utah, Chevron began a processing plant near Farmington; TOSCO planned a 48,000-bbl/day 

plant at Sand Wash in the northeastern part of the state, while Paraho announced a project to be 

started near Vernal in 1982. The largest development, however, was the Colony Project 

announced by Exxon in 1980, which envisaged production of 47,000 bbl/day, to be built without 

the help of federal subsidies (Rasmussen 2008). In anticipation of continued increases in world 

oil prices, Exxon advocated the large-scale development of the U.S. synthetic fuel industry and 

produced highly optimistic projections of the role of the oil shale in domestic oil production, 

suggesting that up to 600,000 bbl/day could be produced by 1990, 1 million bbl/day by 1995, 

and 8 million bbl/day by 2010, involving the development of 80 plants in Garfield and Rio 

Blanco Counties. Despite the absence of a commercially viable processing technology, the 

company projected the development of 150 oil shale plants over a 20-year period, with 

six massive strip mines, each 3.5 mi long, 1.75 mi wide, and 0.5 mi deep. Each mine would 

require 22,000 workers, with 8,000 workers at each processing plant (Gulliford 1989). 

 To accommodate the workforce required to produce 1 million bbl/day, Exxon began 

construction of a new community at Battlement Mesa, which would double the population of 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-248 

Garfield County. It was estimated that 700 schools, 3,000 teachers and staff, 700 police officers 

and firemen, and 200 doctors would be required (Gulliford 1989). Population in the Colorado 

River Valley would grow to 1.5 million, with 75,000 new housing units required to 

accommodate the new workforce. It was suggested that 7,000 ac-ft/yr of water would be needed 

for one 50,000-bbl/day plant, with 350 ac-ft/yr needed for every additional 1,000 population. 

Although Exxon had water rights on water from the Colorado River, with additional supplies 

available from the Ruedi Reservoir (Rasmussen 2008), oil shale production of 4 million bbl/day 

would require almost 870,000 ac-ft/yr (Gulliford 1989). To satisfy water demand for the larger 

development, Exxon envisioned a pipeline from the Missouri River in South Dakota, with 

interbasin transfers thought to be possible with sufficient state and federal political will. Three 

1,000-MW power plants were also to be built to provide the energy to pump the water through 

the pipeline into western Colorado. 

 Even before the Colony Project started in 1980, there had been significant property 

speculation in communities associated with oil shale development, and rapid inflation in property 

values was experienced in many communities. In Rifle, for example, lots selling for $12,000 in 

1974 sold for $115,000 in 1979 (Gulliford 1989). Land parcels were often bought and sold two 

or three times a year as business in oil shale communities grew. Building permits worth a total of 

$500,000 were granted in 1976; by 1980, permits totaled $14 million. Often land was sold to 

speculators who were from outside the area and were not necessarily interested in the long-term 

well-being of the community. There was also rapid expansion in retail sales and retail prices, 

which led to considerable turnover in local small businesses, with local business owners also 

often from outside local oil shale communities (Gulliford 1989). 

 According to reports in the Rifle Tribune, a local newspaper established at the beginning 

of the oil shale boom, oil shale development affected many aspects of community economic and 

social life, even before the Colony Project, with the delicate social fabric of community and 

neighborliness that had evolved over generations overwhelmed by large-scale in-migration of 

transients from a wide range of communities outside the oil shale region, many of whom, it was 

perceived, had no intention of working (Gulliford 1989). Personal relationships typical of rural 

social life were quickly replaced by impersonal relationships based primarily on marketplace 

relations (see Section 3.11.2.2.5). The boom was particularly threatening to people on fixed 

incomes, with rapid increases in rents, grocery bills, and other expenses. Massive increases in 

drug and alcohol abuse, and domestic violence were also reported, with corresponding increases 

in caseload for social and mental health workers. Rapid increases in poaching of elk and deer 

were reported, in addition to increases in off-road traffic, and little desire to buy homes. Local 

retailers moved quickly to supply in-migrant workers with cars, trucks, snowmobiles, boats, and 

a range of other smaller items, replacing goods traditionally purchased in small ranching 

communities. In addition to in-migrants searching for oil shale employment, there was also a 

large influx of professional workers looking for employment in growing oil shale community 

economies, resulting in considerable improvement in the availability and quality of local 

services. Oil shale towns were often professionally managed with sophisticated zoning and 

planning procedures (Gulliford 1989). 

 To address the emerging housing crisis, Union Oil built employee housing to the north of 

Parachute, with modular housing on 380 acres for 1,000 workers (Gulliford 1989). Although the 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-249 

employer-provided housing succeeded in keeping single, male construction workers isolated 

from the local community, the housing did not address the problem of low-income workers 

arriving without jobs, and living in campsites or in their cars. Expenses involved in evicting 

squatters in Garfield County led quickly to requests that Union Oil pay some of the costs 

associated with rapid population growth. By the time the Exxon Colony Project began, there 

were various stipulations included in the permit, including guaranteed housing for 80% of project 

workers, local road upgrades, prepayment for all water and sewer hookups and waste disposal, 

provision of worker transportation, and annual socioeconomic monitoring reports. The company 

also contributed to local education capital spending, and provided support for local fire, police, 

and emergency management services. Exxon also started construction on a purpose-built 

community at Battlement Mesa to house 25,000 people, which was to include 7,000 house and 

trailer spaces, a 100,000-ft2 shopping center, office buildings, a park, an indoor recreation 

facility, schools, churches, and a golf course (Gulliford 1989). 

 By early 1982, the Colony Project workforce had reached 2,100 and, in order to process 

up to 50,000 bbl/day, was projected to reach 6,992 by 1985 (Gulliford 1989). Rather than 

continue rapid development, however, in May 1982, Exxon decided to close the Colony Project, 

leaving thousands of oil shale and support workers unemployed. Within a week, an estimated 

1,000 people had left Parachute and Garfield County. There were sharp changes in community 

expectations about growth, employment, and lifestyle, and social relationships and family ties 

changed radically. High-priced, former ranching land was sold back to previous owners at low 

prices, but was still subject to high taxes. Some farmland and drainage had been damaged by 

development and could not be recovered. The housing market immediately deflated with many 

houses for sale, and local contracts and orders for materials and supplies were cancelled. High 

rents for new apartment buildings in Battlement Mesa could not be recovered, thus impacting 

rental markets elsewhere in the region. Restaurants lost business, and office and retail space went 

vacant. For some time after closure, transient workers continued to arrive in Parachute, 

remaining a problem for the local community, which impacted social and educational services. 

Churches closed or had to radically reduce their obligations to their congregations. Social 

services and other government departments suffered severe cutbacks and employee layoffs. 

Many local government departments were left with buildings and infrastructure that were too 

large for the remaining population, making them expensive to operate and impacting local tax 

rates. Although Battlement Mesa was later successfully marketed as a retirement community, to 

many the development represented 3,000 acres of sprawl, while Parachute was left with many 

older buildings in need of repair (Gulliford 1989). 

 The bust period lasted for multiple years after the initial announcement. Population in 

Mesa County fell from 94,000 in 1980 to 83,000 in 1985. Eighty-five million dollars in annual 

payroll was lost. Numerous businesses had been started throughout the region, and retail and 

transportation facilities had been built with the expectation of population and economic growth. 

Bankruptcies and housing foreclosures were commonplace; 200 businesses in Rifle alone had 

failed 18 months after the project closed, while foreclosures in Mesa County rose from 98 in 

1981 to 1,042 in 1984 (Gulliford 1989). Occupancy rates in Battlement Mesa were at 35% in 

1984. The closure of the Colony Project affected the entire western Colorado region; by 1984, 

unemployment levels had reached 9.5%, and by 1985, 14.2% of all housing in Grand Junction 

was vacant. It became apparent that preboom conditions would not return to the economy in 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-250 

many respects. Many businesses that had operated for generations had failed and would not be 

reopened. Together with the decline in the coal and the oil and gas industries, the value of farm 

produce, and consequently ranching land, also declined. A survey identified 7,400 people that 

would leave in 1984, with losses in population from 1981 to 1984 representing 15 years of 

population growth in Mesa County. Foreclosures in Mesa County reached 1,600 by 1985. 

Garfield County had lost 6,472 jobs and 3,745 residents between 1981 and 1985 

(Gulliford 1989). 

 The psychological impacts of the bust on the local community, in particular its 

suddenness, although not well-documented, may have been significant (see Section 3.11.2.2.5), 

with many financial and family decisions hinging on rapidly rising incomes and changing 

community social structures (Gulliford 1989). Although Exxon had promised an orderly closure, 

plant workers were not given advance notice. Many workers had expected to be in the area for 

many years and had borrowed money, purchased houses and other expensive items, moved their 

families into the local community, and placed their children in local schools. Individuals and 

institutions had trusted Exxon, had seen the size of the capital initially invested in the project and 

had assumed that progress on the project would continue. Even after closure of the project, many 

businesses remained open, and immediate population decline was not severe. Many long-term 

residents and those in-migrants that remained after closure preferred not to believe that economic 

collapse was possible, and instead hoped for a government buyout of oil shale infrastructure, or 

that another major employer would move in (Gulliford 1989). Changes in social behavior also 

became apparent as a result of declining incomes, as people became isolated from their 

neighbors; communities began looking inwardly to help each other rather than to other 

communities in the Colorado River Valley. Divisions also developed between existing and new 

residents; while surviving social networks could be relied upon by older residents, newer 

residents had little informal community support, which produced alienation, family and marital 

problems, financial problems, domestic violence, drug and alcohol abuse, and divorce 

(Gulliford 1989) (see Section 3.11.2.2.5). 

3.11.2 Current Conditions 

 The socioeconomic environment potentially affected by the development of oil shale 

and tar sands resources includes a region of influence (ROI) in each state (Colorado, Utah, and 

Wyoming), consisting of the counties and communities most likely impacted by development 

of oil shale and tar sands resources (Figure 3.11.2-1; Table 3.11.2-1). For each ROI, three key 

measures of economic development are describedemployment, unemployment, and personal 

income. Five measures of social activity, population, housing, public service employment, and 

local government expenditures are also described. A number of measures of social well-being 

that may be affected by rapid population growth and “boom and bust” economic development

crime, alcoholism, drug use, divorce, and mental illnessare also described. 

 Because it is likely that the viewpoints, perceptions, and attitudes individuals may have 

toward large-scale energy development form an important background to current and future 

conditions in each ROI, a series of interviews was conducted with key stakeholders in Garfield 

and Rio Blanco Counties, Colorado, and Uintah County, Utah, to provide a context to the data 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-251 

FIGURE 3.11.2-1 State ROIs for Oil Shale and Tar Sands Development Areas 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-252 

TABLE 3.11.2-1 Jurisdictions Included in Each ROI 

Colorado ROI 

Counties Delta, Garfield, Mesa, Moffat, and Rio Blanco 

Cities Delta, Clifton, Craig, Fruita, Glenwood Springs, Grand Junction, Parachute, Meeker, 

Rangely, Rifle, and Silt 

School districts Craig, De Beque, Delta County, Roaring Fork (Glenwood Springs), Parachute, Plateau 

Valley (Colbran), Meeker, Mesa County Valley (Grand Junction), Moffat County, 

Rangely, and Rifle 

 

Utah ROI 

Counties Carbon, Duchesne, Emery, Garfield, Grand, San Juan, Uintah, and Wayne 

Cities Moab, Price, Roosevelt, and Vernal 

School districts Carbon County, Duchesne County, Emery County, Garfield County, Grand County, 

San Juan County, Uintah County, and Wayne County 

 

Wyoming ROI 

Counties Carbon, Lincoln, Sweetwater, and Uinta 

Cities Evanston, Green River, Kemmerer, Rawlins, and Rock Springs 

School districts Afton, Evanston, Diamondville, Green River, Lyman, Mountain View, Rawlins, Rock 

Springs, and Saratoga 

presented in the following sections. Individuals contacted were those who provided comments 

as part of the project scoping process, people who have been involved from the early stages of 

oil shale development, including local and county planning officials, community leaders, 

community service providers, realtors, and individuals located in proximity to project 

developments likely to be impacted by specific aspects of energy development. Participants 

were asked about past developments, particularly those that have produced “boom-and-bust” 

economic and social conditions that are deemed relevant, the current situation, including the 

ongoing impact of oil and gas and recreation, and the likely impact of new developments that 

might occur alongside developments in oil and gas and in recreation (see Appendix H). Each of 

the following sections presents a brief summary of concerns expressed during these interviews, 

as a means of providing a context for the economic and social data presented for each ROI. 

 In the following sections that report the opinions and perceptions of interview 

respondents, it should be noted that solicited information may or may not be consistent with 

statistics compiled by local, state, and federal agencies. 

3.11.2.1 Economic Environment 

 3.11.2.1.1 Employment and Unemployment. Developments in the oil and gas industry 

have produced rapid growth in employment in many communities in each ROI, exacerbated by 

growth in recreation and in retirement communities in the Colorado ROI, meaning that there are 

significant labor shortages in numerous service industries, such as restaurants, car dealerships, 

and auto repair. Local government agencies are also experiencing staffing difficulties, where 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-253 

teaching, health, public safety, road and bridge, and fire personnel positions are currently 

difficult to fill. According to one Wyoming County planner, workers are recruited from as far 

away as Michigan. 

 Total employment in the Colorado ROI in 2010 stood at 126,351, 5.2% of all 

employment in the state (Table 3.11.2-2). Industries in the Utah ROI support 53,027 jobs, 4.2% 

of the state total, while the number of people employed in the Wyoming ROI, 47,041, represents 

17.2% of total employment in the state. Employment in the Colorado and Utah ROIs grew 

relatively rapidly over the 2001 through 2010 period. Annual average growth in the Colorado 

ROI was 2.0% during this period, higher than the rate for the state as a whole (0.7%). 

Employment in the Utah ROI grew at a rate of 2.3% between 2001 and 2010, higher than growth 

in the state (1.5%) over the same period. At 0.4%, growth in the Wyoming ROI between 2001 

and 2010 has been slower than in the other ROIs, with only a slightly higher average annual rate 

of 0.6% in the state. 

 Current unemployment rates are higher in each ROI (10.1% in Colorado, 8.7% in Utah, 

and 7.3% in Wyoming) than they were during the period 2001 through 2010 (Table 3.11.2-3). 

Rates for each of the ROIs were higher than those for the three states in 2010. With a relatively 

small labor force in each ROI, the number of local workers presently unemployed and potentially 

available for oil shale and tar sands developments is currently small. Statistics presented on 

unemployment rates may underestimate the number of people unemployed in each ROI, because 

the rates only include individuals available for work and currently collecting unemployment 

benefits. 

TABLE 3.11.2-2 State and ROI Total Employment 

Data 

Location 2001 2010 

Annual Average 

Growth 

20002010 

 

Colorado 

ROI 106,079 126,351 2.0% 

State 2,303,494 2,447,712 0.7% 

 

Utah 

ROI 43,202 53,027 2.3% 

State 1,108,547 1,262,083 1.5% 

 

Wyoming 

ROI 45,345 47,041 0.4% 

State 259,508 273,313 0.6% 

Source: U.S. Department of Labor (2011). 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-254 

TABLE 3.11.2-3 State and ROI Unemployment Data 

Location 

Average 

20012010 

Average 

2010 

Unemployed 

Persons 

(2010 Average) 

 

Colorado 

ROI 3.7 10.1 14,257 

State 3.8 8.9 217,846 

 

Utah 

ROI 6.0 8.7 5,044 

State 4.4 7.7 97,180 

 

Wyoming 

ROI 4.0 7.3 3,703 

State 3.9 7.0 19,132 

Source: U.S. Department of Labor (2011). 

3.11.2.1.2 Employment by Sector. Wage and salary employment in each ROI is 

dominated by employment in services and wholesale and retail trade (Table 3.11.2-4). Almost 

65% of employment in the Colorado ROI is in these sectors (59,482 employed); more than 57% 

of employment in the Utah ROI (21,805) is in services and trade, with a slightly smaller number 

employed in these sectors in the Wyoming ROI (18,830, 53% of the total employed). The service 

and trade sectors are slightly more important in each state compared with each state ROI. The 

service sector includes employment in tourism and recreation, which has become an important 

part of the economy of the ROI in each state. Although the oil and gas sector constituted only a 

relatively small share of total ROI employment in 2004 (0.8% in Colorado, 2.9% in Utah, and 

4.8% in Wyoming), the sector has seen significant growth in a number of counties in each ROI. 

In Colorado, oil and gas employment in Mesa County grew from 190 to 350 between 1998 and 

2004, while employment in the sector in Garfield County in 2004 was 287, growing from 120 in 

2002. In contrast, oil and gas employment in Rio Blanco County fell from 340 in 1998 to 120 in 

2004. In Utah, oil and gas employment is concentrated in Duchesne County, with between 250 

and 300 employed in the sector over the period 2000 to 2004, and in Uintah County, where 

employment grew steadily from 450 to 700 between 1998 and 2004. Each of the four ROI 

counties in Wyoming has oil and gas employment, with the largest concentrations in 2004 in 

Sweetwater (705 employees) and Uinta Counties (1,015), with fairly steady growth in both 

counties since 1998. 

 Employment in natural gasproducing counties in each of the three states has continued 

to grow since 2004 (see Section 6.1.1.10.1). 

 A number of industries are more important in the ROIs than at the state level, notably 

transportation and utilities in each state ROI (5.0% of total employment in the Colorado ROI, 

9.0% of the Utah ROI, and 8.7% of the Wyoming ROI); agriculture in the Colorado ROI (5.0%) 

and Utah ROI (6.3% of the total); and mining in the Utah ROI (11.0%) and Wyoming ROI 
TABLE 3.11.2-4 State and ROI Employment by Industry, 2009 Mininga Location Agricultureb Oil and Gas Coal Total Construction Manufacturing Transportation and Utilities Wholesale and Retail Finance, Insurance

and Real Es

Colorado ROI 4,586 786 735 4,137 9,964 3,492 4,631 18,413 5,430 

Percentage of total 5.0 0.8 0.9 4.5 10.8 3.8 5.0 20.0 5.9 State 40,307 8,980 2,052 25,127 141,420 121,919 68,716 344,429 142,253 Percentage of total 2.0 0.4 0.1 1.2 6.9 6.0 3.4 16.8 7.0 

Utah ROI 2,388 1,220 1,500 4,167 3,732 1,494 3,414 7,083 1,494 

Percentage of total 6.3 2.9 5.0 11.0 9.8 3.9 9.0 18.7 3.9 State 20,180 3,219 1,529 10,068 66,485 110,538 52,951 193,525 83,094 Percentage of 

 total 

 1.9 0.3 0.2 0.9 6.2 10.2 4.9 17.9 7.7 

Wyoming 

ROI 1,337 2,145 925 5,931 2,508 2,829 3,115 6,568 11,525 

 Percentage of  total 

 3.8 4.8 3.0 16.7 7.0 7.9 8.7 18.4 4.3 

 State 10,082 13,046 4,829 24,682 19,751 10,453 12,329 40,386 11,569  Percentage of  total 

 4.5 4.8 2.4 11.0 8.8 4.7 5.5 18.0 5.2 

a Data for oil and gas employment and coal employment is for 2004; total mining employment data is for 2009. In addition to oil and gas extract

mining total includes metals mining, nonmetallic minerals mining, and support activities for mining. 

b Agricultural employment includes data for hired farm workers in 2007. 

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau (2011a); USDA (2011). 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-256 

(16.7%). The mining sector in each of the states includes the two sectors that would be directly 

impacted by oil shale and tar sands developmentoil and gas extraction and coal mining. Coal 

mining has a slightly larger share of total employment in each ROI than other activities in the 

mining sector. 

 Employment in oil shale RD&D projects in Colorado and Utah has grown steadily since 

1995, with an estimated workforce of 810 employed during construction and 535 during 

operations in the five current projects in Colorado, and with 120 employed during both 

construction and operation in the single current project in Utah. Indirect employment and income 

generated from these projects have also provided moderate additional benefits to the economy of 

each ROI (see Section 6.1.1.10.2). 

3.11.2.1.3 Personal Income. In the Colorado and Utah ROIs, labor shortages in many 

nonenergy sectors and low unemployment rates described in Section 3.11.2.1.1 are partly due to 

an acute shortage of affordable housing (see Section 3.11.2.2.5), but they also occur because 

wages paid by oil and gas companies usually attract people from these occupations into a wide 

range of manual labor positions requiring little or no college education. Equipment operators, 

according to a Colorado assistant county manager, “can make 50% more” in the oil and gas 

sector than in local government agencies, “with wages of $26/hour, and despite an improved 

benefits package.” Currently there are numerous vacant positions for these workers in Garfield 

and Rio Blanco Counties in Colorado. Industries in Utah and Wyoming unable to pay wages 

comparable to those in the oil and gas industry also suffer labor shortages. In Utah, according to 

a Uintah County planner, wages for clerical services occupations have almost doubled because of 

competition from the oil and gas industry, increasing from “$6 to $7/hr to $9 to $11/hr.” 

 Labor incomes in oil and gas production were significantly higher than the average in 

each ROI. At $77,500, labor incomes in the sector in the Colorado ROI in 2004 were more than 

70% higher than average incomes, and at $54,300 in Utah, 30% higher, while at $78,400, oil and 

gas labor incomes in Wyoming were slightly less than twice the average for all sectors in the 

ROI (U.S. Department of Commerce 2011). Labor incomes in oil and gas support activities were 

slightly higher than the ROI average in Colorado and lower than the ROI average in Utah, while 

labor incomes in oil and gas drilling were slightly lower than the ROI average in Colorado, and 

slightly higher than the average labor incomes in the Wyoming ROI. 

 Total personal income in 2009 stood at $9.1 billion in the Colorado ROI, $3.3 billion in 

the Utah ROI, and $4.1 billion in the Wyoming ROI (Table 3.11.2-5). Annual average growth in 

personal income over the period 2000 through 2009 was 3.3% in the Colorado ROI, 2.8% in the 

Utah ROI, and 4.3% in the Wyoming ROI. Per capita personal income grew from $32,776 in 

2000 to $35,656 in 2009 in the Colorado ROI, from $23,426 to $29,813 in the Utah ROI over 

the same period, and from $33,851 to $43,161 in the Wyoming ROI (U.S. Department of 

Commerce 2011). State per capita income in each state in 2009 was slightly higher than each 

ROI. 

 Median household income in the Colorado ROI over the period 2006 to 2009 varied from 

$40,658 in Delta County to $64,837 in Garfield County (U.S. Department of Commerce 2011). 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-257 

TABLE 3.11.2-5 State and ROI Personal Income 

$ billions 2010 

Location 2000 2009 

Annual Average Growth, 

20002009 

 

Colorado 

ROI 6.8 9.1 3.3% 

State 186.2 214.0 1.6% 

 

Utah 

ROI 2.4 3.3 2.8% 

State 69.7 89.4 0.3% 

 

Wyoming 

ROI 3.0 4.1 4.3% 

State 18.3 26.7 3.2% 

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce (2011). 

In the Utah ROI median incomes varied from $36,209 in San Juan County to $57,735 in Uintah 

County, and in the Wyoming ROI they varied from $50,963 in Carbon County to $67,210 in 

Sweetwater County. 

3.11.2.2 Social Environment 

3.11.2.2.1 Quality of Life. Although a relatively small number of individuals directly 

affected by the “boom and bust” associated with the Colony Project in the late 1970s and early 

1980s remain in local communities in the vicinity of the project site, memories of the events 

before, during, and after the Colony development form an important part of the perception of 

large-scale energy development projects in western Colorado. The experience of the “boom and 

bust” and the long, slow recovery period in the 1980s and 1990s are both magnified and 

perpetuated, with many local government officers, city managers, and professional people 

currently residing in the affected communities also present during each phase of development. 

According to a Colorado city mayor, about “a third” of current residents in Rifle remember 

“Black Sunday,” May 2, 1982, when “Exxon closed the gates to the Colony Project.” Some local 

residents come from families that have lived in the area for many years, while many became 

residents during the oil shale boom, looking for work as teachers, local government officers, and 

realtors during the boom years prior to 1982. 

 Many people living in the area apparently still remember exactly what they were doing 

on Black Sunday, a date that is locally accorded the same significance as the date of the Kennedy 

assassination and the attack on the World Trade Center. More than 2,000 workers lost their jobs 

with the closure of the Colony Project, with many more out of work in the various supporting 

occupations in the economy of western Colorado, producing a “severe depression” throughout 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-258 

the region, according to a Colorado assistant county manager. Overnight, the housing market, 

which had struggled to keep pace with in-migration associated with the Colony development, 

with rapidly escalating prices for the few lower-priced homes that were available, collapsed. In 

the experience of one Colorado county manager, some properties lost “60% of their value in one 

week.” Numerous recently constructed apartment buildings were left empty, many “businesses 

were lost,” and banks closed, with “people standing in line to get their money,” according to a 

Colorado assistant county manager, once the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation had been 

called in. In Rifle, this signaled the beginning of a 10-year recession, with the economy of 

Garfield County not recovering until the mid-1990s. 

 Memories of the impact that the Colony Project had on economic and social life in the 

region are still vivid for people living in the area. The “huge workforce” of 2,000 required for the 

project meant a large and rapid influx of workers to staff construction vacancies and people 

looking for work in the associated boom. With the in-migrant population growing daily, the 

immediate problem associated with the project was an acute housing shortage, with, according 

to one Colorado city mayor, people “living in tents, under bridges and in culverts,” while 

differences in the relative fortunes of the oil shale workers and the remainder of the working 

population in the local communities was clear, with the perception that in-migrant oil shale 

workers were “walking around with dollars dripping out of their pockets.” The size and pace of 

oil shale development meant that community infrastructure also had to be expanded rapidly to 

accommodate the new workers and their families. In Parachute, the housing development built 

by Exxon at Battlement Mesa was “oversized” compared even to the housing demands of 

in-migrating oil shale workers, according to a Colorado county manager. The supporting 

infrastructure provided by local government (notably library, schools, roads, and sewers) was 

sized for a larger project than was required even at the time. Elsewhere in Garfield County, local 

planners had estimated infrastructure demands for the long term, with County Road 215 rebuilt 

to accommodate truck and car traffic for a large new development, while funding was also 

provided for additional public buildings. 

 While funding infrastructure developments to support the Colony Project put local 

jurisdictions under enormous financial pressure, with no severance tax revenues from oil shale 

production available during project construction, the additional infrastructure in Parachute and 

elsewhere in Garfield County, it is suggested, has provided a sound basis for the diversification 

of the area away from extractive energy and into recreation. With the Battlement Mesa 

development, together with smaller developments in the area and the associated public 

infrastructure, the Rifle area became “an affordable housing area for the entire region” according 

to a Colorado city mayor, with cheaper housing in the area eventually leading to population 

growth and recovery from the oil shale bust. 

 By the end of the 1990s, developments in the oil and gas industry in Colorado, Utah, and 

Wyoming had begun to place local communities under many of the same pressures they had 

experienced during the oil shale boom. Since 2003, the industry has created “a boom almost akin 

to oil shale,” with “exponential growth” in population, large increases in the local working 

population, and higher employee income levels impacting community quality of life, according 

to a Colorado county manager. Many retail businesses, particularly grocery stores, have 

experienced problems maintaining sufficient stock to meet local demand. Beginning with the 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-259 

Colony Project and continuing with current oil and gas development in both Colorado and Utah, 

patterns of retailing have changed from small, local general stores serving local retail demand, to 

the development of regional retail centers. Grand Junction, for example, which is 1.5 hours from 

Meeker, serves the region for most retail functions, with local stores limited to high-priced basic 

items, representing a “permanent change in life-style” that is perceived negatively by many local 

residents, according to a Colorado water commissioner. There is currently a single store in 

Meeker that sells feed, and people are prepared to drive 50 to 100 mi for large grocery purchases. 

Although Wal-Mart stores have been built in Rifle and Vernal, where a Lowe’s has also been 

built, there is concern that these stores will have difficulties finding staff and will not be able to 

offer a range of goods at reasonable prices. 

 The lack of adequate transportation infrastructure has developed into a serious problem in 

Rio Blanco and Garfield Counties, with traffic levels on local roads particularly high during shift 

change times. Rapid development of oil and gas has meant that county authorities have had to 

“play catch up with traffic,” according to a Colorado assistant county manager, with many 

local and county roads built only of gravel and not capable of supporting the necessary “12 to 

18 80,000-lb” drilling rig and water tanker trucks required for oil and gas drilling activities. 

During the exploration phase, trucks are moved in and out of each well site “every 10 weeks” 

with older drilling technology, and “every 3 to 4 weeks” with newer production technology, 

according to the same county manager. At current employment levels, there are six people in 

each drilling crew, with three shifts for each rig. One worker is required for every six wells once 

production gets underway. 

 Lack of rail or interstate highway transportation infrastructure in Vernal, Utah, 

exacerbates the dependence on extractive industries, according to a Uintah County planner, with 

little opportunity for the town to develop as a retail hub. The additional infrastructure in 

Parachute and elsewhere in Garfield County on the other hand, it is suggested, has provided a 

sound basis for the diversification of the area away from extractive energy and into recreation. 

 To better plan for impacts of oil and gas development, various local and county citizen 

oversight groups have been formed in Colorado to provide for the communication of local 

community concerns to oil companies. Garfield County has established an Energy Advisory 

Board with representatives of oil companies and local citizens, and an Oil and Gas Liaison 

Committee that receives complaint calls and has attempted to reflect the concerns of the local 

community by undertaking local impact studies in a number of topical areas, notably water wells, 

health risk, air quality, and land values. Unfortunately, not all oil companies provide 

representatives for meetings, leaving one Colorado mayor “disgusted.” In an attempt to develop 

a long-term coping strategy to address dependence on one major regional source of employment, 

Garfield County has identified a series of sectors to be targeted for development to allow 

economic diversification away from energy development. An “energy village” has been 

established to host renewable energy developments, including bio, solar, and possibly wind 

energy, and it has been proposed to make Rifle a regional commercial retail center. An additional 

impact of high local wages in the oil and gas sector is that it affects the ability of local 

communities to diversify, with teenagers able to drop out of school and earn “$60,000 to 

$70,000” in oil and gas jobs, leading to “a degradation in the college bound population,” 

according to a Colorado county manager. With large labor transfers from nonenergy into energy 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-260 

occupations, the perception is that the oil and gas companies need only “warm bodies” to 

continue to operate. 

 Water allocation is a significant regional problem with the development of energy 

production in Garfield and Rio Blanco Counties, and the fact that energy companies have been 

buying historic water rights from ranchers is “a concern,” according to a city mayor in Colorado. 

Often ranchers are bought out by companies and nonlocal parties, and then the land with no 

associated water rights is leased back to the original owners with only limited water available for 

stock but not for irrigated agriculture. Many apparently perceive this as a “sad” development. 

Often hay is the only crop still being produced on many ranches, with only “nominal 

involvement in agriculture” on these properties “to avoid higher property taxes,” according to a 

Colorado water commissioner, with the perception that “there would be no agriculture in the area 

with commercial oil shale.” In the experience of a Utah city manager, the perception is that 

regional water capacity “can handle” population increases from oil and gas development. 

 Dramatic increases in traffic with the Colony Project and subsequent oil and gas 

development, often on roads into areas with very limited access, has often meant disruption to 

wildlife, in particular horse and elk herds. As a result, city government and many residents in 

Rifle oppose energy development on the Roan Plateau, not only because it interferes with a 

significant local source of income during the hunting season from September to November, but 

because the community in Rifle “is historically represented by hunting and fishing,” according to 

a Colorado city mayor. To avoid the steady disappearance of agriculture in the region with the 

purchasing of land for historic water rights in both Colorado and Wyoming, land has been sold 

for conservation easements, where historic water rights remain associated with specific land 

parcels. Although this provides a safe haven for game and preserves the land in more traditional 

uses, these easements “are not popular with out-of-state hunters,” who can no longer access 

game, according to a Colorado water commissioner. Conservation easements, particularly 

WSR designation, are also perceived as a threat to the traditional way of life in Utah, with the 

curtailment of vehicular access inhibiting hunters and anglers, according to a Duschesne County 

planner. Housing shortages also affect hunting, with insufficient local capacity during hunting 

months. Oil and gas workers are apparently excluded from some trailer park rentals, which are 

held exclusively for hunters. In Sweetwater County, Wyoming, in an attempt to preserve historic 

cultural heritage with the onset of energy development, “to understand why we live here,” land 

in the community of Adobetown was recently excluded from coal mining, according to a 

Sweetwater County planner. 

 Attitudes toward future energy developments vary from cautious optimism in the 

business community, “some of whom will benefit from new development,” according to a 

Colorado city mayor, to skepticism among those who remember the “boom and bust” 

associated with the Colony Project, the problems associated with housing migrant workers, the 

social impacts associated with temporary workers without their families, and the difficulties 

associated with planning public services and infrastructure. Many individuals are leery of oil 

shale development and do not believe that the technology is mature enough for commercial 

production; they are suspicious of new development given the history of the industry in the area. 

Some want tighter controls on development, especially housing, with infrastructure costs paid by 

developers. Even though Exxon received no subsidies from the federal government for the 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-261 

Colony Project, some believe that the involvement of the Synfuel Corporation in the 

development of oil shale made it easier for oil companies to pull out, blaming the “boom and 

bust” on the end of federal subsidies. This perception stands in contrast to the current situation 

with oil and gas, where people apparently perceive that private companies receive no direct 

financial help from federal authorities. In Utah, although natural gas developments have been 

“immense,” there is “stability compared to oil shale,” according to a city manager, with people 

apparently sharing the view of the oil companies that there will be “long lasting and steady 

growth” in the area. Others were more skeptical, however. One Uintah County planner stated 

that oil and gas development was “scary to a lot of people,” and wondered, “Are we setting 

ourselves up for another bust?” In Wyoming, one county commissioner was highly supportive 

of oil and gas development despite the drawbacks of infrastructure provision to support local 

population growth. The commissioner stated that the checkerboard pattern used by planning 

agencies for land use designation tended to drive oil and gas development onto private land, 

creating a “lack of balance,” with unfair demands on infrastructure and public services in drilling 

areas. 

3.11.2.2.2 Population. After a number of years of slow population growth, by the early 

1990s, counties in western Colorado began experiencing higher growth rates. Driving the growth 

was the proximity of the area to the fast-growing winter recreation communities in Glenwood 

Springs, Aspen, and Vail, while Battlement Mesa itself has become a retirement community. 

Although commuting to these communities required a 70- to 90-mi drive, growth in these 

recreation communities, together with associated planning controls in these up-market 

communities, meant that there was little or no affordable housing for service workers in these 

resorts. As a result, Rifle and other communities in Garfield County have developed into 

“commuter towns,” with “30,000 commuters” in the county predicted by 2025, according to a 

Colorado county manager. Over the past several years, population has grown rapidly in some 

communities hosting oil and gas developments, “at an annual rate of 4.9%, with rates of up to 

7%” in Garfield County, according to a Colorado mayor. Local labor shortages have also led to 

an increase in the number of undocumented workers filling jobs in local service sector 

occupations, in the experience of a Colorado county manager. 

 In 2009, the population in the Colorado ROI stood at 254,227; the population in the Utah 

ROI was 112,037; and in the Wyoming ROI it was 94,868 (Table 3.11.2-6). The ROI population 

makes up a relatively small percentage of total population in Colorado (5.1%) and Utah (4.0%) 

and a larger percentage in Wyoming (17.4%). Population in the ROIs in each state grew 

relatively slowly over the 2000–2009 period. Annual average growth in the Colorado ROI was 

2.3% during this period, higher than for the state as a whole (1.7%). In the Utah ROI, population 

grew at an average annual rate of 1.2% between 2000 and 2009, less than the state growth rate of 

2.5% over the same period. At an annual rate of 0.9%, growth in the Wyoming ROI was slower 

than in the other ROIs, with only a slightly higher average annual rate of 1.1% in the state. 

Section 6.1.1.10.1 provides projections of population in each ROI for the years 2009, 2012, 

2016, 2022, and 2027. 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-262 

TABLE 3.11.2-6 State and ROI Population 

Location 2000 2009 

Annual Average Growth, 

20002009 

 

Colorado 

ROI 207,050 254,227 2.3% 

State 4,301,261 5,024,748 1.7% 

 

Utah 

ROI 101,019 112,037 1.2% 

State 2,233,169 2,784,572 2.5% 

 

Wyoming 

ROI 87,567 94,868 0.9% 

State 493,782 544,270 1.1% 

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau (2011c,d). 

3.11.2.2.3 Urban Population and Income. The population of the Colorado ROI in 2009 

was 57.3% urban; the largest city, Grand Junction, had an estimated population of 58,444; other 

larger cities in the ROI include Fruita (12,274), Craig (9,301), Rifle (9,255), Delta (9,253), 

Glenwood Springs (9,107), Carbondale (6,313), and New Castle (4,145) (Table 3.11.2-7). In 

addition, there are 22 smaller cities in the ROI with 2009 populations of less than 4,000. 

 Population growth rates in the Colorado ROI have varied over the 2000 to 2009 period 

(Table 3.11.2-7). New Castle grew at an annual rate of 8.5% during this period, with growth 

rates higher than the ROI average (2.3%) experienced in Fruita (7.4%), Silt (5.0%), Delta 

(4.2%), Grand Junction (3.7%), Rifle (3.5%), and Parachute (2.8%). The remaining cities 

experienced lower growth between 2000 and 2009, the majority experiencing growth rates of 

less than 2% during this period. 

 Median household incomes vary across cities in the Colorado ROI. Over the 2006 to 

2009 period, Rifle ($72,824), Carbondale ($72,782), Redlands ($67,490), Silt ($66,300), 

Rangely ($60,560), De Beque ($59,431), and New Castle ($57,371) had median incomes that 

were higher than the state average ($57,144) (Table 3.11.2-7). More than 15% of individuals in 

seven cities—Dinosaur, Monte Vista, Parachute, Crawford, Del Norte, Delta and Clifton — were 

living in poverty over the period from 2005 to 2009. 

 The population of the Utah ROI in 2009 was 34.8% urban; the largest city, Vernal, had 

an estimated population of 9,225; other larger cities in the ROI include Price (8,236), Roosevelt 

(5,466), Moab (5,148), and Blanding (3,292) (Table 3.11.2-8). In addition, there are 50 smaller 

cities in the ROI with 2009 populations of less than 2,500. 

 Population growth rates in the Utah ROI have varied over the period 2000 to 2009 

(Table 3.11.2-8). Naples grew at an annual rate of 3.4% during this period, with growth rates 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-263 

TABLE 3.11.2-7 ROI Urban Population and Income for the Colorado ROI 

 Median Household Income 

 Population 

 Average 

 

Average 

Annual $ 2010 

Annual 

Growth 

City 2000 2009 

Growth 

Rate, 

20002009 1999 

2005–

2009a

Rate, 1999 

and 2005–

2009 

Individuals 

Living in 

Povertya

 

Battlement Mesa 3,497 NAb NA 46,448 51,265 1.1% 6.7% 

Carbondale 5,196 6,313 2.2% 66,391 72,782 1.0% 10.6% 

Cedaredge 1,854 2,272 2.3% 34,672 35,548 0.3% 10.1% 

Clifton 17,345 NA NA 40,121 43,073 0.8% 15.7% 

Colbran 388 439 1.4% 41,155 43,985 0.7% 10.9% 

Craig 9,189 9,301 0.1% 52,033 51,786 –0.1% 11.7% 

Crawford 366 395 0.9% 29,481 24,602 –2.0% 19.3% 

De Beque 451 543 2.1% 37,523 59,431 5.2% 8.1% 

Del Norte 1,705 1,592 –0.8% 30,180 29,151 –0.4% 18.7% 

Delta 6,400 9,253 4.2% 34,715 39,599 1.5% 16.3% 

Dinosaur 319 338 0.6% 39,572 36,336 –0.9% 24.6% 

Fruitvale 6,936 NA NA 56,272 56,732 0.1% 5.7% 

Fruita 6,478 12,274 7.4% 41,698 56,815 3.5% 9.9% 

Glenwood Springs 7,736 9,107 1.8% 55,633 52,791 –0.6% 12.0% 

Grand Junction 41,986 58,444 3.7% 41,980 46,460 1.1% 15.2% 

Hotchkiss 968 1,095 1.4% 35,527 42,773 2.1% 9.9% 

Meeker 2,242 2,469 1.1% 43,661 53,107 2.2% 4.4% 

Monte Vista 4,529 3,992 –1.4% 35,954 29,787 –2.1% 21.9% 

New Castle 1,984 4,145 8.5% 69,646 57,371 –2.1% 8.3% 

Orchard City 2,880 3,239 1.3% 45,479 47,970 0.6% 9.7% 

Orchard Mesa 6,456 NA NA 51,772 51,465 –0.1% 9.0% 

Palisade 2,579 2,931 1.4% 35,126 44,600 2.7% 11.5% 

Paonia 1,497 1,649 1.1% 40,307 47,291 1.8% 11.4% 

Parachute 1,006 1,288 2.8% 39,519 45,314 1.5% 19.9% 

Rangely 2,096 2,188 0.5% 52,268 60,560 1.6% 7.0% 

Redlands 8,043 NA NA 67,789 67,490 0.0% 5.3% 

Rifle 6,784 9,255 3.5% 54,114 72,824 3.4% 5.0% 

Silt 1,740 2,693 5.0% 56,517 66,300 1.8% 6.5% 

South Fork 604 526 –1.5% 46,431 44,383 –0.5% 11.8% 

a Data are averages for the period 2005 to 2009. 

b NA = data not available. 

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau (2011e–h). 

 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-264 

TABLE 3.11.2-8 ROI Urban Population and Income for the Utah ROI 

Population Median Household Income 

 

Average 

Annual $ 2010 

Average 

Annual 

City 2000 2009 

Growth 

Rate, 

20002009 1999 

2005–

2009a 

Growth Rate, 

1999 and 

2005–2009 

Individuals 

Living in 

Povertya

 

Altamont 178 203 1.5% 36,406 37,529 0.3% 3.1% 

Aneth 598 NAb NA 21,897 25,955 1.9% 37.3% 

Antimony 122 113 0.8% 28,492 28,798 0.1% 40.0% 

Ballard 566 759 3.3% 44,672 67,083 4.6% 11.3% 

Bicknell 353 347 0.2% 41,471 49,434 2.0% 2.8% 

Blanding 3,162 3,292 0.4% 41,776 38,182 1.0% 23.8% 

Bluff 320 NA NA 30,272 16,367 6.6% 66.7% 

Boulder 180 189 0.5% 37,989 45,249 2.0% 0.0% 

Cannonville 148 137 0.9% 36,406 47,855 3.1% 14.3% 

Castle Dale 1,657 1,594 0.4% 55,951 41,673 3.2% 19.7% 

Castle Valley 349 386 1.1% 41,874 41,201 0.2% 15.5% 

Clawson 153 175 1.5% 39,572 36,082 1.0% 25.3% 

Cleveland 508 522 0.3% 42,421 43,536 0.3% 8.7% 

Duschesne 1,408 1,702 2.1% 41,061 47,741 1.7% 19.1% 

East Carbon City 1,393 1,271 1.0% 32,054 31,987 0.0% 7.9% 

Elmo 368 370 0.1% 42,737 50,474 1.9% 7.2% 

Emery 308 296 0.4% 51,246 53,891 0.6% 3.2% 

Escalante 818 757 0.9% 40,703 41,597 0.2% 8.5% 

Ferron 1,623 1,566 0.4% 48,911 60,984 2.5% 15.8% 

Fort Duchesne 621 NA NA 23,743 23,624 0.1% 29.9% 

Halchita 270 NA NA 12,505 10,550 1.9% 72.9% 

Halls Crossing 89 NA NA 33,728 NA NA 0.0% 

Hatch 127 117 0.9% 46,958 46,755 0.0% 1.7% 

Helper 2,025 1,906 0.7% 38,055 42,749 1.3% 4.5% 

Henrieville 159 146 0.9% 36,089 31,000 1.7% 21.0% 

Huntington 2,131 2,080 0.3% 46,807 40,252 1.7% 11.0% 

La Sal 339 NA NA 32,830 NA NA 0.0% 

Loa 525 514 0.2% 42,737 40,021 0.7% 1.7% 

Lyman 234 230 0.2% 46,355 38,660 2.0% 9.9% 

Maeser 2,855 NA NA 51,638 76,513 4.5% 6.3% 

Mexican Hat 88 NA NA 73,010 NA NA 0.0% 

Moab 4,779 5,148 0.8% 41,307 35,508 1.7% 22.6% 

Montezuma Creek 507 NA NA 37,197 18,846 7.3% 29.1% 

Monticello 1,958 2,028 0.4% 45,497 38,929 1.7% 9.9% 

Myton 539 629 1.7% 29,722 35,574 2.0% 25.8% 

Naples 1,300 1,751 3.4% 54,651 66,384 2.2% 8.5% 

Navajo Mountain 379 NA NA 17,976 44,722 10.7% 35.0% 

Neola 533 NA NA 48,390 66,105 3.5% 8.6% 

Oljata–Monument 

 Valley 

864 NA NA 40,760 43,500 0.7% 46.6% 

 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-265 

TABLE 3.11.2-8 (Cont.) 

Population Median Household Income 

 

Average 

Annual $ 2010 

Average 

Annual 

City 2000 2009 

Growth 

Rate, 

20002009 1999 

2005–

2009a

Growth Rate, 

1999 and 

2005–2009 

Individuals 

Living in 

Povertya

 

Orangeville 1,398 1,361 0.3% 57,055 37,933 4.4% 10.6% 

Panguitch 1,623 1,502 0.9% 42,421 36,935 1.5% 14.2% 

Price 8,402 8,236 0.2% 40,125 35,410 1.4% 18.3% 

Randlett 224 NA NA 21,009 22,164 0.6% 44.6% 

Roosevelt 4,299 5,466 2.7% 36,963 52,051 3.9% 14.6% 

Scofield 28 26 0.8% 33,240 28,798 1.6% 0.0% 

Spanish Valley 181 NA NA 63,578 46,021 3.5% 6.1% 

Sunnyside 404 384 0.6% 41,731 35,892 1.7% 30.5% 

Tabiona 149 171 1.5% 36,406 69,070 7.4% 1.8% 

Torrey 171 192 1.3% 32,745 32,271 0.2% 16.8% 

Tropic 508 472 0.8% 53,818 61,792 1.5% 7.4% 

Tselakai Dezza 103 NA NA 59,832 135,418 9.5% 0.0% 

Vernal 7,714 9,225 2.0% 38,441 49,567 2.9% 10.1% 

Wellington 1,666 1,601 0.4% 49,826 41,580 1.3% 15.7% 

White Mesa 277 NA NA 17,412 15,373 1.4% 45.4% 

White Rocks 341 NA NA 13,191 16,517 2.5% 23.3% 

a Data are averages for the period 2005 to 2009. 

b NA = data not available. 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2011e–h). 

higher than the ROI average (1.2%) experienced in Ballard (3.3%), Roosevelt (2.7%), Duschesne 

(2.1%), Vernal (2.0%), Myton (1.7%), Tabonia (1.5%), Clawson (1.5%), Altamont (1.5%), and 

Torrey (1.3%). The remaining cities experienced lower growth rates from 2000 to 2009, with 

21 cities experiencing negative growth rates during this period. 

 Median household incomes vary across cities in the Utah ROI. Over the period 2006 to 

2009, Tselakai Dezza ($135,418), Maeser ($76,513), Tabonia ($69,070), Ballard ($67,083), 

Naples ($66,384), Neola ($66,105), Tropic ($61,792), and Ferron ($60,984) had median incomes 

that were higher than the state average ($57,144) (Table 3.11.2-8). Seven cities (Fort Duchesne, 

Randlett, Montezuma Creek, Whiterocks, Bluff, White Mesa and Halchita) had median 

household incomes that were less than half the state average, while more than 15% of individuals 

in 24 cities were living in poverty over the period 2005 to 2009, and more than 50% of the 

individuals in Halchita and Bluff were living below the poverty line. 

 The population of the Wyoming ROI in 2009 was 57.3% urban; the largest city, Rock 

Springs, had an estimated population of 20,905; other larger cities in the ROI include Green 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-266 

River (12,411), Evanston (11,958), Rawlins (8,793), and Kemmerer (2,513) (Table 3.11.2-9). In 

addition, there are 53 smaller cities in the ROI with 2009 populations of less than 2,000. 

 Population growth rates in the Wyoming ROI have varied over the 2000 to 2009 period 

(Table 3.11.2-9). Alpine grew at an annual rate of 4.6% during this period, with growth rates 

higher than the ROI average experienced in Baggs (2.2%), Wamsutter (1.9%), Thayne (1.5%), 

La Barge (1.3%), and Rock Springs (3.5%). The remaining cities experienced lower growth 

between 2000 and 2009, with growth rates of less than 2%; eight cities had negative growth 

rates. 

 Median household incomes vary across cities in the Wyoming ROI. Over the period from 

2006 to 2009, 25 cities, including Arrowhead Spring ($216,731), Farson ($91,794), North Rock 

Springs ($89,474), Etna ($87,555), Alpine Northwest ($83,369), and Bedford ($81,533) had 

median incomes that were higher than the state average ($52,843) (Table 3.11.2-9). Seven cities 

(Little America, Dixon, Robertson, Washam, Turnerville, Auburn, and Lonetree) had median 

household incomes that were less than half the state average, while more than 15% of individuals 

in nine cities were living in poverty over the period 2005 to 2009, and more than 50% of the 

individuals in Purple Sage were living below the poverty line. 

3.11.2.2.4 Housing. Housing prices have risen rapidly in areas experiencing brisk 

population growth associated with oil and gas development. Rifle, Colorado, has witnessed “2% 

growth per month in the last three months,” according to a Colorado mayor, and “26% over the 

last seven months,” according to a Colorado county manager. Rental housing used by oil and gas 

drilling workers is “almost completely unavailable,” with vacancy rates at about 2%, according 

to a Colorado realtor. Rental housing in Newcastle, Silt, Parachute, and Rifle is currently “all 

taken,” and there are “no hotels” available because of the oil and gas boom, according to a 

Colorado county manager. Rental vacancy rates have changed significantly in the last 2 years, 

and for those able to find rental housing, rates “have doubled in the last two years.” Home 

construction for oil and gas workers has been undertaken, often in areas annexed to smaller 

communities, together with speculative development of more expensive single-family homes, 

which are often priced at more than $500,000. Some local ranchers are selling 3- to 4-acre 

parcels to small builders, with homes then marketed locally and statewide. Homes are occupied 

by production workers, with some executives occupying higher-priced houses. There are 

numerous “overpriced” houses for sale, according to a Colorado realtor, producing an artificially 

high overall vacancy rate in state and federal statistics. Houses with three bedrooms and two 

bathrooms sell for $225,000 in Meeker, and for between $375,000 and $425,000 outside of town 

on 3 to 5 acres of land. Inflation in housing prices is “scary” to many potential buyers, according 

to a Colorado realtor, often meaning that houses are on the market for extended periods of time. 

 Affordable housing has become such “a critical issue” in Uintah County, Utah, “as part of 

the boom throughout Utah,” that a housing specialist has been hired, according to a Utah city 

manager. Particularly hard hit are entry-level teachers (10 of whom recently rejected contracts 

because of housing issues), police officers, entry-level government workers, and retail sales 

workers. A plan has been suggested whereby the Uintah County School District buys housing in 

order to ensure affordable housing for teachers, while the idea of offering tax credits for housing 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-267 

TABLE 3.11.2-9 ROI Urban Population and Income for the Wyoming ROI 

Population Median Household Income 

 

Average 

Annual $ 2010 

Average 

Annual 

City 2000 2009 

Growth 

Rate, 

20002009 1999 

2005–

2009a

Growth Rate, 

1999 and 

2005–2009 

Individuals 

Living in 

Povertya

 

Afton 1,818 1,906 0.5% 47,223 54,054 0.5% 15.1% 

Alpine 550 827 4.6% 57,380 67,337 1.8% 2.6% 

Alpine Northeast 82 NAb NA 54,346 54,995 0.1% 35.0% 

Alpine Northwest 152 NA NA 50,968 83,369 5.6% 0.0% 

Arrowhead Springs 68 NA NA 103,161 216,731 8.6% 0.0% 

Auburn 276 NA NA 41,946 17,416 9.3% 31.6% 

Baggs 348 423 2.2% 37,594 30,492 2.3% 36.0% 

Bairoil 97 98 0.1% 48,014 49,973 0.4% 8.8% 

Bedford 169 NA NA 51,246 81,533 5.3% 13.3% 

Carter 8 NA NA 15,301 NA NA 0.0% 

Clearview Acres 850 NA NA 53,336 50,718 0.6% 3.2% 

Cokerville 506 501 0.1% 40,148 65,304 5.6% 0.7% 

Diamondville 716 679 0.6% 49,807 40,974 2.1% 11.3% 

Dixon 79 82 0.4% 30,075 24,775 2.1% 22.8% 

Eden 388 NA NA 66,639 60,585 1.1% 0.0% 

Elk Mountain 192 201 0.5% 51,048 48,279 0.6% 12.0% 

Etna 123 NA NA 54,346 87,555 5.4% 6.5% 

Evanston 11,507 11,958 0.4% 53,208 51,205 0.4% 9.2% 

Fairview 277 NA NA 45,040 32,186 3.7% 0.0% 

Farson 242 NA NA 56,407 91,794 5.6% 0.0% 

Fontenelle 19 NA NA NA NA NA 0.0% 

Fort Bridger 400 NA NA 40,561 54,378 3.3% 3.8% 

Grand Encampment 443 NA NA 37,285 NA NA NA 

Granger 146 149 0.2% 58,962 72,419 2.3% 9.9% 

Green River 11,808 12,411 0.6% 67,321 71,886 0.7% 8.1% 

Grover 137 NA NA 41,155 32,425 2.6% 0.0% 

Hanna 873 871 0.0% 46,048 37,480 2.3% 8.2% 

James Town 552 NA NA 65,952 50,967 2.8% 3.6% 

Kemmerrer 2,651 2,513 0.6% 59,963 68,269 1.5% 3.0% 

La Barge 431 483 1.3% 48,806 49,041 0.1% 14.6% 

Little America 56 NA NA 22,952 26,204 1.5% 0.0% 

Lonetree 61 NA NA 41,941 16,517 9.8% 0.0% 

Lyman 1,938 2,034 0.5% 64,011 65,863 0.3% 11.6% 

McKinnon 49 NA NA 101,577 NA NA 0.0% 

Medicine Bow 274 269 0.2% 42,737 33,880 2.5% 18.0% 

Mountain View 1,153 1,235 0.8% 62,048 70,724 1.5% 0.0% 

North Rock Springs 1,974 NA NA 67,935 89,474 3.1% 6.8% 

Oakley 18 NA NA 80,198 NA NA 0.0% 

Opal 102 98 0.4% 49,069 44,468 1.1% 4.2% 

Point of Rocks 3 NA NA 52,235 NA NA 0.0% 

 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-268 

TABLE 3.11.2-9 (Cont.) 

Population Median Household Income 

 

Average 

Annual $ 2010 

Average 

Annual 

City 2000 2009 

Growth 

Rate, 

20002009 1999 

2005–

2009a

Growth Rate, 

1999 and 

2005–2009 

Individuals 

Living in 

Povertya

 

Purple Sage 413 NA NA 40,905 54,208 3.2% 56.8% 

Rawlins 8,538 8,793 0.3% 46,346 53,654 1.6% 7.9% 

Reliance 665 NA NA 50,257 62,107 2.4% 2.8% 

Riverside 59 64 0.9% 60,940 76,412 2.5% 12.5% 

Robertson 59 NA NA 66,797 22,234 11.5% 0.0% 

Rock Springs 18,708 20,905 1.2% 53,924 66,898 2.4% 6.6% 

Saratoga 1,726 1,778 0.3% 47,024 56,933 2.1% 10.3% 

Sinclair 423 406 0.5% 61,053 74,415 2.2% 2.1% 

Smoot 182 NA NA 40,867 42,273 0.4% 0.0% 

Star Valley Ranch 776 696 1.2% 60,758 67,261 1.1% 1.8% 

Superior 244 242 0.1% 58,566 27,824 7.9% 6.6% 

Sweeney Ranch 17 NA NA 39,572 NA NA 0.0% 

Table Rock 82 NA NA 61,732 NA NA 0.0% 

Taylor 90 NA NA 48,119 NA NA 0.0% 

Thayne 341 389 1.5% 40,363 28,314 -3.9% 10.6% 

Turnerville 155 NA NA 66,933 21,331 11.9% 20.2% 

Wasmsutter 261 310 1.9% 45,112 67,655 4.6% 1.9% 

Washam 43 NA NA 114,108 21,771 16.8% 28.0% 

a Data are averages for the period 2005 to 2009. 

b NA = data not available. 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2011e–h). 

has also been suggested. Many workers are using “campers and tents, or doubling or tripling up 

with relatives,” according to a Uintah County planner. There are “many people in between 

welfare recipients and those that afford $300,000 homes,” many of whom “are being told they 

will have to wait 6 months to qualify for a loan with the current mortgage crisis.” High staff 

turnover among local merchants is also “blamed on the housing crisis.” In Lincoln County, 

Wyoming, with median home prices at $290,000 in Kemmerer, the demand for new housing is 

so high that 300 new 900-ft2 homes were sold for $190,000 before construction had started, 

according to a County commissioner. 

 Tourism and recreation in Rio Blanco County has created additional demand for housing, 

with people from elsewhere buying second homes, often renting for 1 to 2 years before buying, 

and with some selling in response to the “harsh winters,” according to a Colorado realtor. Some 

homes are bought by fishermen and hunters who are in search of “small town life.” 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-269 

 In Colorado, energy development companies have begun to address housing shortages 

with the development of employer-provided housing. However, although only local and no state 

approval is required for employer-provided housing of up to 24 workers in Garfield County, state 

approval for larger employer-provided housing areas “has not been requested,” according to a 

Colorado county manager. A larger housing area of 125 workers has been permitted in 

Rio Blanco County. In Sweetwater County, Wyoming, employer-provided housing has also been 

planned, with housing for up to 400 persons permitted for BP, with housing also permitted for 

Questar, both for a 20-year period. Commuting distances for oil and gas workers in Utah are 

often between 60 and 100 mi, and with workers on 12 to 14 hour shifts, 15% of the workforce is 

rotated through local motels, and the remainder through trailer home employer-provided 

housing. Regardless of their size, worker housing areas are still likely to produce social impacts, 

in the opinion of local officials, such as drug, alcohol, and spousal abuse, and mental health 

issues. Some local officials would prefer more local community housing rather than employerprovided housing to take advantage of the benefits of a locally resident workforce. The 

development of separate local and oil and gas communities has led to suspicion of oil and gas 

workers in local communities, resulting in having “to lock doors,” while preferring “to leave 

doors open and trust everyone.” 

 Housing stock in the Colorado ROI grew at an annual rate of 1.8% over the period of 

2000 through 2009 (Table 3.11.2-10), with 102,004 total housing units in 2009. The rate of 

growth in vacant units (3.1%) was higher than the overall rate of growth in the ROI, while the 

annual growth in both owner-occupied and rental units stood at 1.7%. 

TABLE 3.11.2-10 ROI Housing Characteristics 

Number of Units 

Parameter 2000 2009 

Annual Average Growth, 

20002009 

 

Colorado ROI 

 Owner-occupied 57,685 67,261 1.7% 

 Rental 22,714 26,539 1.7% 

 Vacant 6,228 8,204 3.1% 

Total 86,627 102,004 1.8% 

 

Utah ROI 

 Owner-occupied 26,187 28,822 1.1% 

 Rental 6,929 9,160 2.4% 

 Vacant 8,853 8,841 0.0% 

Total 42,469 46,823 1.1% 

 

Wyoming ROI 

 Owner-occupied 24,356 26,341 0.9% 

 Rental 7,967 9,036 1.4% 

 Vacant 6,747 6,962 0.3% 

Total 39,070 42,339 0.9% 

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau (2011c,d).
Final OSTS PEIS 3-270 

 Annual growth in housing in the Utah ROI in the 2000 through 2009 period was 1.1%, 

with 46,823 total housing units in 2009. The annual rate of growth in rental units (2.4%) was 

higher than the overall rate of growth in the ROI. Annual growth in owner-occupied units was 

lower at 1.1%, and there was no growth in the number of vacant units in the ROI between 2000 

and 2009. 

 In 2009, there were 42,339 total housing units in the Wyoming ROI. The ROI housing 

market grew at an annual rate of 0.9% over the 2000 through 2009 period. The rate of growth in 

rental units (1.4%) was higher than the overall rate of growth in the ROI (0.9%). The number of 

owner-occupied units grew during the 2000s by an average of 0.3% annually, and the number of 

vacant units in the ROI increased slightly. 

 Statistics presented on housing vacancy rates are based on the total number of vacant 

housing units. In some areas of each ROI, rental vacancy rates may be lower than the published 

rate because there may be numbers of owner-occupied housing units that were for sale, or were 

occupied only seasonally or were second homes, and, therefore, recorded as vacant, when the 

data were collected. 

3.11.2.2.5 Fiscal Conditions. Funding infrastructure during oil and gas development can 

put local jurisdictions under enormous financial pressure, and although some oil companies have 

contributed to the cost of new roads where there is no existing access to drilling areas in some 

areas, there often has been little support from energy companies where existing roads need to be 

upgraded. With the pace of energy development, local governments are experiencing difficulties 

funding infrastructure improvements, with escalation in the price of construction materials, 

particularly of gravel, in Garfield County increasing the cost of a two-lane road “from $1 to 

$2.5 million/mile,” according to a Colorado county manager. While the county can get help from 

the state, which provides energy impact funds from severance tax revenues, with “$0.5 million 

provided per project,” the county has to provide matching funds, only some of which have come 

from increased property tax revenues; paying for upgraded infrastructure “can be difficult,” 

according to a Colorado county manager. Other sources of revenues, such as sales taxes, are 

often dedicated to other areas, such as public libraries. Some municipalities receive recirculated 

state sales taxes for roads. In Colorado, severance taxes are currently distributed directly to 

impacted communities based on energy worker residential locations, but with many workers 

living in Craig and Grand Junction and bussed in every day, the problem of providing 

infrastructure and service where they are used is exacerbated. Recently, three new road projects 

were put out for bid by Garfield County, and “none were taken,” which, combined with a 

shortage of construction workers, means that county authorities are “losing a never-ending 

struggle,” according to a Colorado county manager, to keep up with oil and gas development. 

 In Utah, mineral lease funds paid to the federal government are “distributed equitably” by 

the Community Impact Board to local jurisdictions, according to a Utah city manager, and are 

used to pay for water and sewer service, educational facilities, fire stations, recreation facilities, a 

shelter for women and the homeless, and administration buildings. In Vernal, the Board has not 

provided support for housing development to local communities, instead preferring to send 

dollars “to housing authorities, not us,” according to a Utah city manager. Sales taxes “make up 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-271 

for shortfalls” from mineral lease payments. To offset the impact of energy development, 

mitigation plans were used during the White River oil shale boom before any royalty payments 

were available from energy production. Despite the flow of funds to local authorities affected by 

oil and gas development in both states, planning for the mitigation of impacts in the form of 

infrastructure development and provision of public services does not occur until oil and gas 

“development levels and timing are obvious,” according to a Utah city manager. Although 

mitigation agreements exist between gas companies and local governments, many companies 

“are not sharing information” on crucial issues, such as development schedules. Various 

programs are used by oil and gas companies to help mitigate the impact of rapid resource 

development in each ROI, often in the form of financial assistance to local jurisdictions to offset 

the increasing cost of providing services. In Colorado and Utah, oil companies have provided 

wide-ranging help with the cost of road repair and upgrading to support higher traffic levels. In 

Lincoln County, Wyoming, companies provided $1.6 million for snow removal in 2007, and 

through the Hathaway Fund provide $7,000 per semester to graduating seniors with high grade 

point averages, according to a county commissioner. 

 The diversion of tax revenues away from areas suffering many of the adverse impacts of 

rapid energy development, primarily to areas with larger populations, was a significant issue at 

the county level, and has led to “resentment,” according to a Uintah County planner. Although 

counties may collect property tax and ad valorem tax revenues, sales taxes and Community 

Impact Board funds are intended to help cities. Severance taxes are collected and distributed by 

the state, although these are used to mitigate impacts on county roads, according to a Duschesne 

County planner. A particular problem lies in funding the county school system, where land on 

which schools are built is held by a special trust and supported by a special royalty system. 

Revenues are circulated “to areas with the largest population base,” and the county school 

system “can’t get things done without support from Salt Lake City legislators.” In Wyoming, 

there are also conflicts in the allocation of resources among counties and communities for 

mitigation of impacts of oil and gas development, with many nonmineral counties in the state, 

many of which are dependent on agricultural interests, and many counties that do not have 

significant natural resources, and, therefore, receive more state government funds. 

 Table 3.11.2-11 shows the current expenditures by the various local government 

jurisdictions in each ROI and in each state. 

3.11.2.2.6 Public Service Employment. In addition to problems securing adequate 

funding for infrastructure development with energy development and the associated rapid growth 

rates in local population, differences in rates of pay between energy and nonenergy occupations 

mean that there are significant labor shortages in numerous service industries, such as 

restaurants, car dealerships, and auto repair, and in local government, where teaching, health, 

public safety, road and bridge, and fire personnel positions are difficult to staff. 

 Table 3.11.2-12 presents data on levels of service (number of employees per 

1,000 population) for public safety and general local government services and employment. 

Table 3.11.2-13 provides health services data, and Table 3.11.2-14 provides data on school 

district staffing and performance indicators. 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-272 

3.11.2.2.7 Social Disruption. Social problems 

associated with rapid population growth with the 

development of energy extraction and power generation 

projects in small rural communities were first studied 

extensively in the 1970s and 1980s. Gilmore and Duff 

(1975) and Gilmore (1976), for example, found that 

rapid growth led to higher divorce and school dropout 

rates, suicide attempts, social alienation and isolation, 

juvenile delinquency, and crime, while Gold (1982) 

found that resource developments led to a weakening of 

social ties in the local community. Other studies 

suggested that boomtown growth was responsible for 

deterioration in the mental health of existing long-term 

residents and of in-migrants (Lantz and McKeown 1977; 

Dixon 1978; Weisz 1979; Freudenburg et al. 1982). 

Increases in crime, violence, and deviance were reported 

by Lantz and McKeown (1977), Little (1977), and Dixon 

(1978). Changes in the level of community integration 

were also studied (Little 1977; Jirovec 1979; Boulding 

1981), as were changes in community satisfaction 

(Murdock and Schriner 1979). Drawing on the ideas of 

Ferdinand Toennies on the transition of small rural 

communities through industrialization and urbanization 

(Toennies 1887), it was often suggested that these 

changes occurred as a result of the breakdown of 

established informal social structures in small rural 

communities and the inadequacy of new, formal social 

institutions to provide social integration and social 

control (Cortese and Jones 1977; Little 1977; Moen 

et al. 1981; Cortese 1982). 

 The relationship between rapid energy 

boomtown growth and social disruption came under 

closer scrutiny in the early 1980s. It was suggested that 

many of the earlier studies relied on poorly documented 

or unreliable data and assertions on the nature and extent 

of boomtown social problems, preferring to accept the 

presence of social disruption largely in the absence of 

reliable evidence (Wilkinson et al. 1982). Problems with 

research design in many of the earlier studies also were 

highlighted, in particular, the tendency to base research 

findings on data collected in single communities rather 

than in numerous communities affected by energy 

developments (Krannich and Greider 1984), and the use 

of cross-sectional rather than longitudinal data to chart 

community social change over time (Brown et al. 1989). 

TABLE 3.11.2-11 State and ROI 

Public Service Expenditures 

Location 

2005 

($ millions) 

 

Colorado 

 ROI 416.8 

 Colorado 39,481 

 

Utah 

 ROI 215.4 

 Utah 19,455 

 

Wyoming 

 ROI 268.8 

 Wyoming 5,638 

Sources: 

Colorado—City of Craig (2003); City of 

Delta (2004); City of Fruita (2005); City 

of Glenwood Springs (2004); City of 

Grand Junction (2004); City of Rifle 

(2004); Colorado State Demography 

Office (2007); Delta County (2005); 

Mesa County (2003); Moffat County 

(2005); Rio Blanco County (2005); 

Town of Meeker (2005); Town of 

Parachute (2005); Town of Rangely 

(2004); Town of Silt (2005). 

Utah—Carbon County (2004); City of 

Moab (2006); Duchesne County (2004); 

Emery County (2004); Garfield County 

(2004); Grand County (2004); Price 

Municipal Corporation (2005); 

Roosevelt City Corporation (2005); 

San Juan County (2004); Uintah County 

(2004); Utah Governor’s Office of 

Planning and Budget (2006); Vernal 

City Corporation (2005); Wayne County 

(2004). 

Wyoming—Carbon County (2006); City of 

Evanston (2005); City of Green River 

(2004); City of Kemmerer (2005); City 

of Rawlins (2005); City of Rock Springs 

(2005); Lincoln County (2006); 

Sweetwater County (2005); Uinta 

County (2005); Wyoming Department 

of Administration and Information 

(2006). 

Overall—Standard and Poor’s (2006); 

U.S. Census Bureau (2011b,d). 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-273 

TABLE 3.11.2-12 State and ROI Local Government Employment, 2009 (2006a) 

Police Firec Generala,d

Location Number 

Level of 

Serviceb Number 

Level of 

Service Number 

Level of 

Service 

 

Colorado 

 ROI 226 0.9 163 0.6 3,263 14.1 

 State 9,179 1.9 4,980 1.0 173,392 36.1 

 

Utah 

 ROI 160 1.4 13 0.1 1,254 13.2 

 State 3,576 1.4 1,575 0.6 73,357 28.4 

 

Wyoming 

 ROI 117 1.2 57 0.6 1,384 15.5 

 State 1,188 2.3 372 0.7 31,428 61.0 

a ROI and state general government employment data are for 2006; state-level police and fire 

employment data are for 2006.

b Level of service represents the number of employees per 1,000 persons in each geographic unit. 

c The number of firemen does not include volunteers. 

d Total employment does not include teachers, physicians, or health workers. 

Sources: FBI (2011); Fire Departments Network (2011); U.S. Census Bureau (2011b,d). 

 Subsequent work replaced the widespread sense of “alarmed discovery” prevalent in 

earlier research by more cautious and systematic approaches to the analysis of social change 

(Smith et al. 2001). Much of the focus became the study of multiple communities in order to 

separate and understand social change affecting boomtowns and those affecting communities 

outside energy development regions (England and Albrecht 1984; Freudenburg 1984; Krannich 

and Greider 1984; Greider and Krannich 1985; Brown et al. 1989; Berry et al. 1990). 

 Numerous studies have found that rapid growth led to certain forms of social disruption. 

Brown et al. (1989) found that boomtown growth led to community dissatisfaction, while 

England and Albrecht (1984) and Greider and Krannich (1985) found evidence of dissatisfaction 

with community facilities and services. Freudenburg (1986) and Brown et al. (1989) found 

higher fear of crime in boomtown communities than elsewhere. Brown et al. (1989) also found a 

reduction in local friendship ties and increases in residential transiency. Greider et al. (1991) 

found increased isolation, while Greider and Krannich (1985) found a decline in social support 

among residents of boomtown communities compared with more stable communities. The 

conclusions of these studies are quite different from those of earlier work on boomtowns, and 

indicate that periods of rapid population growth are not necessarily associated with social 

disruption and change in small rural communities. 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-274 

TABLE 3.11.2-13 State and ROI 

Public Health Employment, 2010a

Physicians 

Location Number 

Level of 

Serviceb

 

Colorado 

 ROI 787 3.0 

 State 12,027 2.6 

 

Utah 

 ROI 118 1.0 

 State 5,156 2.1 

 

Wyoming 

 ROI 106 1.1 

 Wyoming 1,008 2.0 

a Data for Colorado are for 2003. 

b Level of service represents the 

number of employees per 1,000 

persons in each geographic unit. 

Sources: AMA (2011); U.S. Census 

Bureau (2011e). 

TABLE 3.11.2-14 State and ROI Education Data, 2010a

Location Teachers 

Student-toTeacher Ratiob

School 

Dropout Rates 

 

Colorado 

 ROI 2,601 17.8 27.3 

 State 65,305 16.9 30.2 

 

Utah ROI 1,150 20.6 21.9 

 Utah 35,238 15.9 19.5 

 

Wyoming ROI 1,348 13.1 25.2 

 Wyoming 10,774 15.9 27.8 

a ROI data are for 2010; state data are for 2004. Data on school 

dropout rates are for 2006. 

b The student-to-teacher ratio is the number of students per 

teacher; dropout rates are based on data for the last three high 

school grades. 

Sources: Standard and Poor’s (2006); NCES (2011). 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-275 

 In addition to studies of impacts across multiple communities, various longitudinal 

studies of social change also were made. Data collected in communities experiencing rapid 

growth indicate that divorce and crime rates did not increase significantly (Brookshire and 

D’Arge 1980; Wilkinson 1983; Wilkinson et al. 1984), although there were increases in 

delinquency during boom years (Wilkinson and Camasso 1984). Freudenburg and Jones (1991) 

showed increases in victimization rates in some communities, although Krannich et al. (1989) 

found no increases in victimization during boom years in several energy communities. 

 While it is clear that some level of social disruption seems to have occurred during boom 

years, underlying social structures may not have fundamentally changed. England and Albrecht 

(1984), for example, found no evidence of the replacement of informal social ties common in 

rural areas with formal association found in urban areas. Informal and external ties may actually 

strengthen with length of residence, and boomtown development may facilitate rather than 

diminish informal social ties. England and Albrecht (1984) found no dramatic shift in 

community perceptions during years of population growth, and Seyfrit and Sadler-Hammer 

(1988) found only a limited connection between rapid growth and changing youth attitudes 

toward community and family. Berry et al. (1990) suggest that interactions among neighbors 

during rapid growth periods are relatively stable, while Greider et al. (1991) reported no large 

increases in the level of distrust among neighbors, and that increasing heterogeneity 

accompanying rapid population growth does not significantly decrease neighboring interaction 

(Greider and Krannich 1985). Residents of rapidly growing communities may experience 

expanded opportunities for obtaining social support beyond their local neighborhood, while at 

the same time maintaining adequate relations with their neighbors. 

 Rapid population growth seems to have had differential effects across social groups. 

Freudenberg (1984) considered the effects of social change across different social groups and 

found no differences in attitudes between adults in boomtowns and in neighboring communities, 

but noted higher levels of dissatisfaction and alienation among boomtown adolescents. Krannich 

and Greider (1984) noted deterioration in perceived social integration among temporary mobile 

home residents in boomtown communities. 

 Studies of the long-term effects on community attitudes and perceptions show varying 

levels of community social disruption during the different phases of energy development, with 

examination of social disruption including the boom, decline, and post-boom recovery periods. 

The disruptive effects associated with boom growth may not have been permanent in some 

communities, dissipating in the years after the boom phase ended (Smith et al. 2001), while 

community satisfaction often has rebounded after declining during boom growth periods, 

producing an improvement in the sense of community well-being at the end of the boom period 

(Brown et al. 2005). The decline in the sense of community identity and solidarity during periods 

of instability caused by rapid population growth rebounded fairly quickly with the return to more 

stable growth (Greider et al. 1991). 

Social Disruption Impacts in Relevant NEPA Documents. Social impacts are not 

considered in any detail in the various NEPA-related assessments that have been made since the 

early 1970s of the potential impacts of shale/tar sands projects and other relevant large-scale 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-276 

energy resource developments. Consequently, there is little indication from these documents of 

the extent to which proposed oil shale and tar sands developments would produce social 

disruption in local communities located near these facilities. 

 In the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Prototype Oil Shale Leasing 

Program (DOI 1973), it is recognized that community structures and organizations will be 

affected, together with community social structures and lifestyles. However, beyond a brief 

description of potential problems in the local community adjusting to the influx of in-migrants, 

and the impacts of contrasting urban and rural lifestyles and potential impacts on crime, cultural 

and social change are judged to be highly subjective in nature and therefore difficult to 

adequately measure. Subsequent EISs also recognize the potential social disruption associated 

with oil shale development. The Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement on 

Development Policy Options for the Naval Oil Shale Reserves in Colorado (DOE 1982), for 

example, suggests that rapid population growth and cultural differences between resident and 

nonresident groups may lead to social problems and social conflict. Alcoholism, drug abuse, 

mental illness, divorce, and juvenile delinquency are mentioned as potential impacts of rapid 

population growth associated with oil shale development, but no data or analysis are presented. 

 The Final Environmental Impact Statement on Uintah Basin Synfuels Development

(BLM 1983c) uses evidence of social impacts associated with oil and gas development to suggest 

that additional development would lead to deterioration in attitudes toward quality of life, 

notably with respect to the management of local growth, particularly on Indian reservations. The 

Utah Combined Hydrocarbon Leasing Regional Environmental Impact Statement (BLM 1984b) 

also draws attention to potential impacts associated with changes in lifestyle with decreasing 

local cultural homogeneity, particularly social alienation that might be experienced on Indian 

reservations. 

 In the absence of social baseline data, a number of EISs have suggested that social 

disruption is likely to occur once an arbitrary population growth rate associated with oil shale 

development has been reached. The Green RiverHams Fork EIS (BLM 1980) assumes that an 

annual rate of 10% would result in a breakdown in social structures, with a consequent increase 

in alcoholism, depression, suicide, social conflict, divorce, delinquency, and deterioration in 

levels of community satisfaction. In addition to population growth rates, the EIS suggests that 

cultural dissimilarities between existing and new residents and the perceived political 

helplessness of local residents also cause social disruption. The Final Supplemental 

Environmental Impact Statement for the Prototype Oil Shale Leasing Program (BLM 1983a) 

supports the growth rate approach to identifying communities likely to suffer social disruption, 

also indicating potential elements of social disruption that may affect small rural communities. 

3.11.2.2.8 Social Change. Although an extensive literature in sociology documents the 

most significant components of social change in energy boomtowns, the nature and magnitude of 

the social impact of energy developments in small rural communities are still unclear. While 

some degree of social disruption is likely to accompany large-scale in-migration during the boom 

phase, there is insufficient evidence to predict the extent to which specific communities are 

likely to be impacted, which population groups within each community are likely to be most 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-277 

affected, and the extent to which social disruption is likely to persist beyond the end of the boom 

period (Smith et al. 2001). 

 A significant issue for local communities during oil and gas development is the lack of 

“commitment to the county” of many migrant workers, according to a Colorado county manager 

and Wyoming County planner. Many construction workers do not bring family members to the 

area, and this has led to “social issues,” requiring an additional 33 social workers in Garfield 

County, often to deal with “child welfare issues,” in particular, the collection of child support 

payments, according to a Colorado county manager. There has also been an increase in the 

number of sheriff’s deputies to combat increases in gang-related crime. 

 While much of the literature on social disruption assesses the impact of energy and other 

large-scale developments on small, stable, isolated rural communities, many communities in the 

three ROIs have experienced extensive growth and development during the recent past 

associated with oil and gas development, tourism and recreation, and retirement and second 

home development. Given the scale of these developments, it is likely that some degree of social 

disruption may have already occurred in a number of communities, particularly in the Colorado 

ROI. 

 There are various measures of social change, including violent, drug-related, and juvenile 

crime rates; alcoholism and illicit drug use; divorce rates; and mental illness. 

 Crime rates vary between each ROI and each state (Table 3.11.2-15). Data for 2004 show 

that violent crime rates were lower in the Colorado and Utah ROIs than they were in Wyoming, 

with rates of 1.2 incidents per 1,000 population in the Colorado ROI and 1.6 per 1,000 in Utah, 

compared with 2.3 per 1,000 in Wyoming. Rates of violent crime are higher in the state as a 

whole in Colorado and Utah than in the ROI in each state, while rates in Wyoming as a whole 

are lower than in the Wyoming ROI. Drug-related crime data are only available at the ROI level 

for Colorado, and show a slightly lower level in the ROI (3.9 incidents per 1,000 compared with 

4.2 per 1,000 in the state). Juvenile crime is lower in each ROI than in the corresponding state, 

with 22.6 incidents per 1,000 in Colorado, 13.8 per 1,000 in the Utah ROI, and 5.1 in the 

Wyoming ROI. Overall crime rates are higher in the Utah ROI (67.5 incidents per 1,000) than in 

Colorado (30.9) and Wyoming (27.2). Over time, it would appear that crime rates in the 

Colorado and Wyoming ROIs are declining, with lower rates per 1,000 population in 2004 

compared with 2001 for each category of crime in the Colorado ROI, and violent, juvenile, and 

total crime in the Wyoming ROI. Rates in the two states have also declined between the same 

2 years. 

 Although statistics on alcoholism, drug use, divorce, and mental health are not available 

for each ROI, data for each state may provide some information on social change in each ROI. 

Rates of alcoholism are higher in Colorado (9.2% of the total population with dependence or 

abuse of alcohol) and Wyoming (9.4%) than in the United States as a whole (7.6%), while rates 

in Utah (7.3%) are lower than in the other two states and in the nation (Table 3.11.2-16). Rates of 

drug use in Colorado (3.3% of the total population with dependence or abuse of illicit drugs) and 

Utah (3.5%) are slightly higher than the rate for Wyoming (2.9%), and both are higher than the 

national average (3.0%). Divorce rates in Colorado (4.7 per 1000 population) and Wyoming 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-278 

TABLE 3.11.2-15 State and ROI Crime Ratesa 

Violent Crime Drug Crime Juvenile Crime Total Crime 

Location 2001 2004 2001 2004 2001 2004 2001 2004 

 

Colorado 

 ROI 1.2 1.2 5.7 3.9 32.3 22.6 45.6 30.9 

 State 1.6 1.4 4.5 4.2 40.3 32.8 55.0 50.4 

 

Utah 

 ROI NAb 1.6 NA NA NA 13.8 NA 67.5 

 State NA 2.3 NA NA NA 11.8 NA 51.6 

 

Wyoming 

 ROI 2.4 2.3 NA NA 7.6 5.1 31.0 27.2 

 State 1.2 1.0 NA NA 10.9 9.3 52.2 52.7 

a Rates are the number of crimes per 1,000 population. 

b NA = not available. 

Sources: Colorado Bureau of Investigation (2006); Utah Department of Public 

Safety (2006); Wyoming Division of Criminal Investigation (2006). 

TABLE 3.11.2-16 State Indices of Social Change, 2004a

Location Alcoholism Illicit Drug Use Divorceb Mental Health 

 

Colorado 9.2 3.3 4.7 11.4 

Utah 7.3 3.5 4.1 14.6 

Wyoming 9.4 2.9 5.4 13.3 

 

United States 7.6 3.0 4.1 9.6 

a Data for alcoholism, drug use, and metal health represent percent of the 

population over 12 years of age with dependence or abuse of alcohol, 

illicit drugs, or suffering from serious psychological distress. Data are for 

2005. 

b Divorce rates are the number of divorces per 1,000 population. 

Sources: SAMHSA (2006); CDC (2006). 

 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-279 

(5.4%) are slightly higher than the national average (4.1%) and the rate for Utah (4.1%). Data for 

mental health show that for Colorado, 11.4% of the population suffered from serious 

psychological stress, with slightly higher rates in Wyoming (13.3%) and Utah (14.6%), rates that 

were higher than in the nation as a whole (9.6%). 

3.11.3 Recreation Economy 

 Large areas both within, and in the vicinity of, the oil shale and tar sands ROIs in 

Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming administered by the BLM, USFWS, NPS, U.S. Department of 

Transportation (DOT), USFS, and BOR are used for recreation, primarily hunting and other 

forms of dispersed outdoor activities. Table 3.1.2-1 lists the many recreational areas and other 

areas that may provide recreation opportunities located within about a 50-mi radius of the oil 

shale and tar sands resources. 

 Statistics available at the state level show that in 2001 almost 1.2 million people 

participated in hunting and fishing in Colorado, of whom 60% were state residents, and 

1.6 million participated in wildlife watching (USFWS 2002c). In Utah, participation in these 

activities was lower, with 517,000 fishermen and hunters, 80% of whom, on average, were 

state residents, and 806,000 people wildlife watching. In Wyoming in 2001, there were 

293,000 anglers and hunters, 45% of whom, on average, resided in the state, and 

498,000 wildlife watchers. 

 Numerous popular state parks are located in the vicinity of federally administered land 

near oil shale and tar sands developments. Three facilities in the state located in the oil shale and 

tar sands ROIAnasazi Indian Village State Park, Dead Horse Point State Park, and Edge of the 

Cedars State Parkwere together visited by 255,766 people in 1999 (Utah State 

Legislature 2000). 

 Hunters and anglers spent an estimated $797 million on trip expenses and related 

equipment in Colorado in 2002, almost 60% of which came from state residents, while the 

Colorado Department of Wildlife spent an additional $49 million on operations to support 

hunting and fishing (BBC Research and Consulting 2004). Once the indirect impacts on the 

remainder of the state economy of trip-related expenditures are included, hunting and fishing had 

an overall impact on the state of $1.5 billion, and supported 20,000 jobs. The overall impact of 

wildlife watching, including indirect impacts, on the state was $940 million, supporting 

13,000 jobs. 

 Because public land in the three-state ROI is primarily used for hunting and other forms 

of dispersed outdoor activities, the number of visitors using these lands for these recreational 

activities is not available from all administering agencies; that is, the value of recreational 

resources in these areas, based solely on the number of recorded visitors, is likely to be 

underestimated. In addition to visitation rates, the economic valuation of certain natural 

resources can also be assessed in terms of the potential recreational destination for current and 

future users, that is, their nonmarket value. Another method is to estimate the economic impact 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-280 

of the various recreational activities supported by natural resources on public land in the vicinity 

of land proposed for oil shale and tar sands development. 

3.11.3.1 Economic Valuation of Public Lands Used for Recreation 

 A simple way to quantify the value of recreation on public land would be to measure 

revenue generated by user fees and other charges for public use. However, visitation statistics are 

often incomplete, and, in many cases, federal and state agencies do not charge visitors a fee for 

entrance to recreational resources on public lands; where fees are charged, they may be nominal 

compared with the value of the visit to recreational users. Recreation undertaken using privately 

owned facilities, such as golf courses, horse ranches, or fishing on private waters, has a 

quantifiable market value, with the user paying rates for visiting these facilities, which reflect the 

value of the resource to its owners and the cost of providing access to it to visitors. With the 

majority of recreation in the immediate vicinity of proposed oil shale and tar sands facilities 

likely to occur on public lands, however, the economic value of these resources is more difficult 

to quantify, since no valuation of the use of these resources can be made through the 

marketplace. 

 A number of methods have been used to determine the use value of non-marketed 

recreational goods, or the value of recreational resources on public lands that may be for used 

for recreation. Because resources on public lands are scarce, and recreational activities provide 

enjoyment and satisfaction, the amount visitors would pay over the actual cost of using these 

resources represents the value of the benefit of these resources to the public. One method of 

estimating the net willingness to pay, or consumer surplus, associated with resources on public 

lands used for recreation is the travel cost method. This method uses variation in the cost of 

traveling different distances, and the number of trips taken over each distance, as a way to 

represent the demand for recreational resources in any given location (Loomis and Walsh 1997). 

 In addition to use values, a certain portion of the value of resources used for recreation 

may lie in the passive use of a resource, or the extent of the availability of the resource to current 

and future generations. Attempts to establish passive use values, or the willingness to pay for, or 

accept compensation for the loss of, different levels of nonmarketed recreational resources on 

public lands have used contingent valuation methods, which rely on telephone interviews or 

questionnaire surveys. Typically, a description of a particular resource is presented to 

respondents, who are then asked to place a dollar value on their use of the resource, or on the 

preservation of the resource (Loomis 2000). Although the travel cost and contingent valuation 

methods have weaknesses, particularly with regard to the accuracy of questions asked and 

respondents’ self-reporting errors, both have been used widely by government agencies and 

academics in cost-benefit analyses of outdoor recreation. The BOR, for example, used 

contingent valuation to place a value of the impact of hydropower activities in Utah and 

Colorado on fishing and rafting (BOR 1995). The method was used in establishing the value of 

natural resources damaged by oil spills in Alaska (DOI 1994; Carson et al. 1992), and various 

state agencies have used the travel cost and contingent valuation methods for valuing wildliferelated recreation (Loomis 2000). Contingent valuation methods have also been used to value 

natural resource amenities, such as improvements in visibility in the Grand Canyon (Schulze and 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-281 

Brookshire 1983) and the value of protecting endangered species (Boyle and Bishop 1987) and 

wilderness areas (Koontz and Loomis 2005). 

 Loomis (2000) reports the results of various studies that used survey data and travel cost 

and contingent valuation methods to estimate the value of recreation in wilderness areas in 

Colorado and Wyoming. On the basis of data reported in these studies, the average value per day 

of visiting a wilderness area for recreation was estimated to be $26 (1996 dollars), meaning that 

a visitor would be willing to pay this amount more than trip travel cost rather than lose a day 

visiting an area for recreation. Multiplying this number by the number of visitors to a specific 

wilderness resource would give the value of the resource to the public (Loomis 2000). 

 Contingent valuation has also been used to establish willingness to pay to preserve 

existing wilderness areas, and additional acreage that might be designated as wilderness. On the 

basis of two surveys of Colorado and Utah residents, Walsh et al. (1984) and Pope and Jones 

(1990) found that passive use values varied with the level of wilderness already designated in a 

state, but at a decreasing rate. Passive use value was also found to represent about half of the 

economic value of a resource, equaling the use value of the resource to the household as a place 

for recreation. The same surveys found that residents in Colorado and Utah, and in the rest of the 

United States, would pay between $220 per additional acre, if 510 million acres of wilderness 

resources were to be preserved in the two states, and $1,246 per acre if only 1.2 million 

additional acres were preserved. Passive use values in the western United States were estimated 

to be $168 per acre, or about $7.2 billion when applied to all wilderness land in the west. Barrick 

(1986) estimated the value of the wilderness resources in the Washakie Basin, Wyoming, for 

future visits (option values) at $69 (1996 dollars) for on-site users, and $15 and $13 for urban 

and rural nonvisiting U.S. residents, respectively. 

3.11.3.2 Economic Impact of Recreational Activities 

 The economic value of recreation in the oil shale and tar sands areas in each state can 

be estimated through the impact recreation has on the economy of the ROI in each state by 

identifying sectors in the ROI (see Table 3.11.3-1) economy in which expenditures on 

recreational activities occur. Not all activities in these sectors are directly related to recreation 

on federal lands, with some expenditures made by business visitors, oil and gas workers, and 

interstate travelers, and some activity occurring on private land (e.g., dude ranches, golf courses, 

bowling alleys, and movie theaters). 

 Expenditures associated with recreational activities form an important part of the 

economy of the ROIs and states in which they are located. In 2004, 10,970 people were 

employed in the Colorado ROI in the various sectors identified as recreation, constituting 14% 

of total ROI employment (Table 3.11.3-1). Recreation spending also produced almost 

$123 million in income in the ROI in 2004. The recreation sector was smaller in the Wyoming 

ROI (4,486 persons employed, producing almost $50 million in income), although it represents 

a larger share (15.5%) of total ROI employment, and in Utah (3,227 employed, and almost 

$24 million in income), it contributed 10% of total ROI employment in 2004. 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-282 

TABLE 3.11.3-1 ROI Recreation Sectora Activity, 

2004 

ROIb Employmentb

Share of ROI 

Employment 

Income 

($ million) 

 

Colorado 10,970 14.0% 122.9 

Utah 3,227 10.7% 23.9 

Wyoming 4,826 15.5% 49.6 

a The recreation sector includes amusement and 

recreation services, automotive rental, eating and 

drinking places, hotels and lodging places, museums 

and historic sites, recreational vehicle parks and 

campsites, scenic tours, and sporting goods retailers. 

b The Colorado ROI includes Delta, Garfield, Mesa, 

Moffat, and Rio Blanco Counties; the Utah ROI 

includes Carbon, Duchesne, Emery, Garfield, Grand, 

San Juan, Uintah, and Wayne Counties; the Wyoming 

ROI includes Carbon, Lincoln, Sweetwater, and Uinta 

Counties. 

3.11.4 Transportation 

3.11.4.1 Colorado 

I-70 and Colorado State Highway 64 are the major east–west arterials bounding the 

general area of the Piceance Basin oil shale resource area in Colorado on the south and north, 

respectively. On the east side of the Basin is Colorado State Highway 13, the major north–south 

arterial. Rio Blanco County Roads such as 5, 24, 26, 29, 69, 85, 91, 122, and 144, which provide 

access to the basin interior, are accessed from State Highways 13 and 64. On the west side of the 

basin is north–south State Highway 139; this arterial, however, does not provide ready access to 

the interior of the oil shale area. There are numerous lesser gravel or dirt rural roads within the 

Piceance Basin that are used primarily by recreationists, ranchers, and oil and gas operators. 

 I-70, in addition to being a major east–west national corridor, is the major access between 

Denver and the winter and summer recreation areas in central Colorado. During peak use times 

and during inclement weather, primarily in the winter, traffic on I-70 is very congested and slow. 

Complicating this situation is the increasing amount of commuter traffic that supports both 

recreational tourism in central Colorado and the growth related to current oil and gas 

development on the Western Slope. For some time, Colorado has been addressing possible 

actions that could be employed to minimize the current congestion in this corridor. 

 With the growth of the oil and gas industry in recent years, traffic in the Piceance Basin 

has increased markedly. Well drilling equipment, pipeline construction equipment, and 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-283 

construction and production traffic travel along these roads throughout the day. These roads were 

originally designed for rural and agricultural uses and were not intended for heavy loads and 

traffic volumes associated with oil and gas production and construction. The increasing traffic 

volume, frequency, and vehicle size on these rural roads has contributed to an increase in the 

costs associated with repair and maintenance of these county roads. 

 Table 3.11.4-1 gives average daily traffic numbers in 2005 compiled from the Colorado 

Department of Transportation (CDOT) and the Garfield and Rio Blanco County Road and 

Bridge Department for major roads in the Piceance Basin. 

 Repair and maintenance of county roads represents the single largest dollar impact on 

Rio Blanco County (Exxon Mobil 2006). These county roads, originally designed for rural and 

agricultural uses, are experiencing increased traffic volume, frequency of use, and size of 

vehicles. The commuting workforce and oversized loads typical of the oil and gas industry have 

contributed to the increased costs associated with repair and maintenance, particularly in the 

Piceance Basin area. 

3.11.4.2 Utah 

 The primary access for the Uinta Basin oil shale and tar sands resources from the north is 

via U.S. Highways 40 and 191, and from the south via I-70. The major routes into the basin from 

U.S. Highways 40 and 191 are local roads 45 and 88 south from U.S. 40. U.S. Highway 6 

parallels the southwest side of the Uinta Basin, and Road 123 links this highway with the interior 

of the basin in the vicinity of the Sunnyside STSA. Access to the San Rafael STSA is from I-70, 

which traverses that area. Access to the Tar Sand Triangle STSA is from Highways 24 and 95. 

There also are numerous other gravel or dirt rural roads within the Uinta Basin and tar sands 

resource areas that are used primarily by recreationists, local ranchers, and oil and gas operators. 

TABLE 3.11.4-1 Baseline Average Daily Traffic Data for Study Area Roads 

Road 

Baseline Average Daily Traffic 

(number of vehicles per day) 

 

Colorado Highway 13 between Rifle and the junction with the south 

end of Rio Blanco County (RBC) Road 5 (Piceance Creek Road) 

2,300a

Colorado Highway 13 between south end of RBC Road 5 and 

Colorado Highway 64 near Meeker 

2,300a

Colorado Highway 64 between Meeker and north end of RBC Road 5 830a

Colorado Highway 64 between north end of RBC Road 5 and Colorado 

Highway 139 

1,700a

I-70 from Rifle to Grand Junction 14,300–23,100a

RBC Road 5 (Piceance Creek Road) 562–1,076b

a CDOT (2004). 

b Lower traffic range was measured in May, and high traffic range was measured in late October/early 

November, coinciding with big game hunting season (BLM 2006h). 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-284 

 Portions of eastern Utah within the PEIS study area are undergoing intensive oil and gas 

development, and traffic has both changed in character and increased markedly. As was 

mentioned for Colorado, well drilling and pipeline construction equipment and construction and 

production traffic utilize these roads throughout the day. County roads that were originally 

designed for lower traffic levels and for rural and agricultural uses were not intended for heavy 

loads and traffic volumes associated with oil and gas construction and production. The increasing 

traffic volume, frequency, and vehicle size on these roads have contributed to an increase in the 

costs associated with repair and maintenance. Although constructed to higher standards and for 

heavier uses, state highways are also subject to these higher traffic volumes and the concomitant 

need for increased levels of maintenance and repair. 

3.11.4.3 Wyoming 

 I-80 traverses the central part of the Green River Basin and crosses the northern edge 

of the Washakie Basin in Wyoming and provides primary access to the oil shale resources 

in these areas. Additional major roads passing through or near the Green River Basin are 

U.S. Highways 30, 189, and 191. Other major roads in the Green River Basin are Highways 28, 

240, 372, 410, 412, 414, and 530. The north–south Highways 430 and 789 also provide access to 

the Washakie Basin. Numerous other local roads occur in the oil shale resource areas, many of 

which are gravel or dirt and are used primarily by recreationists, local ranchers, and oil and gas 

operators. Increases in road use associated with oil and gas development are having effects 

similar to those described above for Colorado and Utah. 

3.12 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 

 E.O. 12898, “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations 

and Low-Income Populations,” (U.S. President 1994) formally requires federal agencies to 

incorporate environmental justice as part of their missions. Specifically, it directs agencies to 

address, as appropriate, any disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 

effects of their actions, programs, or policies on minority and low-income populations. 

 The analysis of the impacts of oil shale and tar sands development on environmental 

justice issues follows guidelines described in the CEQ’s Environmental Justice Guidance 

under the National Environmental Policy Act (CEQ 1997). The analysis has three parts: 

(1) a description of the geographic distribution of low-income and minority populations in the 

affected area; (2) an assessment of whether construction and operation would produce impacts 

that are high and adverse; and (3) if impacts are high and adverse, a determination as to whether 

these impacts disproportionately affect minority and low-income populations. 

 The analysis of environmental justice issues considers impacts at the state level in the 

three statesColorado, Utah, and Wyoming. A 50-mi buffer was used to capture the effects 

of oil shale and tar sands development construction and operation that may occur beyond 

designated land. 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-285 

 The description of the geographic distribution of minority and low-income groups is 

based on demographic data from the 2010 Census (U.S. Census Bureau 2012). The following 

definitions were used to define minority and low-income population groups: 

• Minority. Persons are included in the minority category if they identify 

themselves as belonging to any of the following racial groups: (1) Hispanic or 

Latino, (2) Black (not of Hispanic or Latino origin) or African American, 

(3) American Indian or Alaska Native, (4) Asian, or (5) Native Hawaiian or 

Other Pacific Islander. 

Beginning with the 2010 Census, where appropriate, the census form allows 

individuals to designate multiple population group categories to reflect their 

ethnic or racial origins. In addition, persons who classify themselves as being 

of multiple racial origins may choose up to six racial groups as the basis of 

their racial origins. The term minority includes all persons, including those 

classifying themselves in multiple racial categories, except those who classify 

themselves as not of Hispanic or Latino origin and as White or “Other Race” 

(U.S. Census Bureau 2007). 

The CEQ guidance proposed that minority populations should be identified 

where either (1) the minority population of the affected area exceeds 50%, or 

(2) the minority population percentage of the affected area is meaningfully 

greater than the minority population percentage in the general population or 

other appropriate unit of geographic analysis. 

In this PEIS, both criteria were applied in using the Census Bureau data for 

census block groups; consideration was given to the minority population that 

is both more than 50% and 20 percentage points higher than in the state 

(the reference geographic unit). 

• Low Income. Individuals who fall below the poverty line are included in this 

category. The poverty line takes into account family size and age of 

individuals in the family. In 2009, for example, the poverty line for a family 

of five with three children below the age of 18 was $25,790. For any family 

below the poverty line, all family members are considered to be below the 

poverty line for the purposes of analysis (U.S. Bureau of Census 2012). 

The CEQ guidance proposed that low-income populations should be identified 

where either (1) the low-income population of the affected area exceeds 50%, 

or (2) the low-income population percentage of the affected area is 

meaningfully greater than the low-income population percentage in the 

general population or other appropriate unit of geographic analysis. 

In this PEIS, both criteria were applied in using the Census Bureau data for 

census block groups; consideration was given to the low-income population 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-286 

that is both more than 50% and 20 percentage points higher than in the state 

(the reference geographic unit). 

 Data in Tables 3.12-1 and 3.12-2 show the minority and low-income composition of total 

population located in the designated oil shale and tar sands development areas and associated 

50-mi buffers in the three states (based on 2010 Census data and CEQ Guidelines). Individuals 

identifying themselves as Hispanic or Latino are included in the table as a separate entry. 

However, because Hispanics or Latinos can be of any race, this number also includes individuals 

who identify themselves as being part of one or more of the population groups listed in the table. 

 On the basis of 2010 Census data, low-income and minority populations are located in 

each of the three states where oil shale and tar sands development may occur (Figures 3.12-1 

through 3.12-4). 

 In Utah, there are six census block groups within 50 mi of the oil shale area where the 

minority population exceeds 50% of the total population in each block group; there are two block 

TABLE 3.12-1 Minority and Low-Income Populations in the Oil Shale Resource Area and Buffer 

Population Segment 

Colorado 

Block Groups 

Idaho Block 

Groups 

Utah 

Block Groups 

Wyoming 

Block Groups 

 

Total population 297,251 1,034 134,291 89,496 

 

White, non-Hispanic 240,205 969 114,105 75,966 

 

Hispanic or Latino 47,215 43 10,861 10,005 

 

Non-Hispanic or Latino minorities 9,831 22 9,325 3,525 

 One race 5,754 14 7,228 2,366 

 Black or African American 1,404 0 382 562 

 American Indian or Alaskan Native 1,732 7 5,944 1,179 

 Asian 2,042 6 590 498 

 Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 257 1 239 81 

 Some other race 319 0 73 46 

 Two or more races 4,077 8 2,097 1,159 

 

Total minority 57,046 65 20,186 13,530 

 

Low-income 10,705 51 4,539 6,953 

 

Minority 

 ROI 19.2 6.3 15.0 15.1 

 State 30.0 16.0 19.6 14.1 

 

Low-income 

 ROI 9.7 14.0 10.8 9.2 

 State 12.2 13.6 10.8 9.8 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-287 

TABLE 3.12-2 Minority and Low-Income Populations in the Tar Sands Resource 

Area and Buffer 

Population Segment 

Colorado 

Block Groups 

Utah 

Block Groups 

Wyoming 

Block Groups 

 

Total population 147,989 362,864 3,867 

 

White, non-Hispanic 122,742 300,305 3,461 

 

Hispanic or Latino 19,925 37,219 283 

 

Non-Hispanic or Latino minorities 5,322 25,340 123 

 One race 3,065 19,393 72 

 Black or African American 790 1,392 13 

 American Indian or Alaskan Native 923 12,398 30 

 Asian 1,071 3,510 19 

 Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 142 1,719 10 

 Some other race 139 374 0 

 Two or more races 2,257 5,947 51 

 

Total minority 25,247 62,559 406 

 

Low-income 6,203 15,849 120 

 

Minority 

 ROI 17.1 17.2 10.5 

 State 30.0 19.6 14.1 

 

Low-income 

 ROI 11.3 15.6 3.6 

 State 12.2 10.8 9.8 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2012). 

groups where the minority share of the total block group population exceeds the state average by 

more than 20 percentage points. This minority population is located in the northeastern part of 

the state in the immediate vicinity of the oil shale resource area itself, that is, in the southeastern 

portion of the Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation, and in the north-central part of the state, to 

the east of Springville. Five census block groups within 50 mi of the oil shale area exceed the 

state percent low-income by more than 20 percentage points; one block group has more than 

50% low-income. The low-income population is centered in roughly the same area as the 

minority population, with five block groups in the southeastern portion of the Uintah and Ouray 

Indian Reservation, and one located in the vicinity of Price. 

 Within 50 mi of the oil shale area in Colorado, there is one census block group that has a 

minority population exceeding 50% of the total population; it is located to the east of the oil 

shale area, in Carbondale. Two census block groups with a low-income population that exceeds 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-288 

FIGURE 3.12-1 Minority Population Concentration in Census Block Groups within Oil Shale 

Resource Areas and Associated 80-km (50-mi) Buffer 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-289 

FIGURE 3.12-2 Low-Income Population Concentration in Census Block Groups within Oil 

Shale Resource Areas and Associated 80-km (50-mi) Buffer 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-290 

FIGURE 3.12-3 Minority Population Concentration in Census Block Groups within Tar Sands 

Resource Areas and Associated 80-km (50 mi) Buffer 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-291 

FIGURE 3.12-4 Low-Income Population Concentration in Census Block Groups within Tar Sands 

Resource Areas and Associated 80-km (50 mi) Buffer 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-292 

the state average by more than 20 percentage points are located in Grand Junction. In Wyoming, 

there are two census block groups located in the Wind River Indian Reservation with a minority 

population that is more than 50% minority. One census block group with a low-income 

population exceeding the state average by more than 20 percentage points is also located in the 

Wind River Indian Reservation. 

 Fourteen census block groups occur within 50 mi of the tar sands resource areas in Utah 

where the minority population exceeds 50% of the total population in each block group, and four 

block groups where the minority share of the total block group population exceeds the state 

average by more than 20 percentage points. These block groups are located in two separate areas 

in the state. In the northeastern part of the state, the minority population within 50 mi of the tar 

sands area is located in the southeastern portion of the Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation, and 

in the north-central part of the state to the east of Springville and in Provo. In the southeastern 

part of the state, the minority population is located to the south of the Tar Sand Triangle and 

White Canyon areas and includes Blanding and the Navajo and Ute Mountain Indian 

Reservations. Within 50 mi of the tar sands resource areas in Utah, there are 32 block groups 

exceeding the state percent low-income by more than 20 percentage points; in Colorado there 

are 2. There are 18 block groups in Utah where the low-income population is more than 50% of 

the total population. These groups are centered in much the same area as the minority population, 

that is, in the southeastern portion of the Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation, in the 

north-central part of the state to the east of Springville and in Provo, and in the area to the south 

of Tar Sand Triangle. 

3.13 REFERENCES 

Note to Reader: This list of references identifies Web pages and associated URLs where 

reference data were obtained. It is likely that at the time of publication of this PEIS, some of 

these Web pages may no longer be available or their URL addresses may have changed. 

Acoustical Society of America, 1983, American National Standard Specification for Sound Level 

Meters, ANSI S1.4-1983, New York, N.Y. 

Acoustical Society of America, 1985, American National Standard Specification for Sound Level 

Meters, ANSI S1.4A-1985 Amendment to ANSI S1.4-1983, New York, N.Y., June 26. 

Adams, D.B., et al., 1986, Hydrologic Data from Roan Creek and Parachute Creek Basins, 

Northwestern Colorado, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 83-859. 

AZGFD (Arizona Game and Fish Department), 2006, Arizona Game and Fish Department 

Heritage Data Management System: Plant Abstracts, Distribution, Maps and Illustrations. 

Available at http://www.azgfd.gov/w_c/edits/hdms_abstracts_plants.shtml. Accessed July 19, 

2006. 

AMA (American Medical Association), 2011, Physician-Related Data Resources. Available at 

http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/2676.html. 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-293 

Andrews, E.D., 1983, “Denudation of the Piceance Creek Basin, Colorado,” pp. 205–215 in 

Dissolved Loads of Rivers and Surface Water Quantity/Quality Relationships, IAHS Pub. 

No. 141, Proceedings of the Hamburg Symposium, Aug. 

Archer, S.R., and K.I. Predick, 2008, “Climate Change and Ecosystems of the Southwestern 

United States,” Rangelands 30:23–28. 

Atwood, D., et al., 1991, Utah Endangered, Threatened and Sensitive Plant Field Guide, Utah 

Threatened and Endangered Species Act Plant Interagency Committee. 

Austin, J., and A. Richert, 2001, A Comprehensive Review of Observational and Site Evaluation 

Data of Migrant Whooping Cranes in the United States, 1943–99, U.S. Geological Survey, 

Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown, N.D. Available at http://www.npwrc. 

usgs.gov/resource/birds/wcdata/pdf/wcdata.pdf. Accessed Sept. 21, 2010. 

Baker, S.G., et al., 2007, “Protohistoric and Historic Native Americans,” pp. 29–106 in Colorado 

History: A Context for Historical Archaeology, M.C. Church et al. (editors), Colorado Council of 

Professional Archaeologists, Denver, Colo. 

Barrick, K., 1986, Option Value in Relation to Distance Effects and Selected User 

Characteristics for the Washakie Wilderness, Northeast Wyoming, National Wilderness 

Research Conference, U.S. Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, Utah. 

Bauch, N.J., and N.E. Spahr, 1998, “Salinity Trends in Surface Waters of the Upper Colorado 

River Basin, Colorado,” Journal of Environmental Quality 27:640–655. 

BBC Research and Consulting, 2004, The Economic Impacts of Hunting, Fishing, and Wildlife 

Watching in Colorado, prepared for Colorado Division of Wildlife, Oct. 31. 

Behnke, R.J., 1992, Native Trout of Western North America, Monograph 6, American Fisheries 

Society, Bethesda, Md. 

Behnke, R.J., et al., 1982, “A Survey and Analysis of Existing Information on Fishes in 

Northwest Colorado,” Vol. 6 of Wildlife Conservation and Energy Development in Northwest

Colorado, D.W. Crumpacker (editor), Ecological Services Section, Colorado Division of 

Wildlife, Denver, Colo. 

Behrens, J., and J. Brooks, 2000, “Wind in Their Wings: The Condor Recovery Program,” 

Endangered Species Bulletin XXV:89, May/June. 

Beidleman, C.A., 2000, Colorado Land Bird Conservation Plan Version 1.0, Colorado Partners 

in Flight. Available at http://www.blm.gov/wildlife/plan/pl-co-10.pdf. Accessed Sept. 26, 2006. 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-294 

Belica, L.T., and N.P. Nibbelink, 2006, Mountain Sucker (Catostomus platyrhynchus): A 

Technical Conservation Assessment, USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Golden, 

Colo., Aug. Available at http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/mountainsucker.pdf. 

Accessed May 13, 2008. 

Belnap, J., and D.H. Campbell, 2011, Effects of Climate Change and Land Use on Water 

Resources in the Upper Colorado River Basin, U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2010–3123. 

Belnap, J., et al., 2009, “Sediment Losses and Gains across a Gradient of Livestock Grazing and 

Plant Invasion in a Cool, Semi-arid Grassland, Colorado Plateau, USA,” Aeolian Research 

1:27–43. 

Bengston, G., 2007, unpublished information, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Ill. 

Berry, E.H., et al., 1990, “A Longitudinal Analysis of Neighboring in Rapidly Changing Rural 

Places,” Journal of Rural Studies 6:175186. 

Bestgen, K.R., and M.A. Williams, 1994, “Effects of Fluctuating and Constant Temperatures on 

Early Development and Survival of Colorado Squawfish,” Transactions of the American 

Fisheries Society 123:574–579. 

Bestgen, K.R., et al., 1998, Downstream Transport of Colorado Squawfish Larvae in the Green 

River Drainage: Temporal and Spatial Variation in Abundance and Relationships with Juvenile 

Recruitment, Larval Fish Laboratory, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colo. 

Bestgen, K.R., et al., 2002, Status of Wild Razorback Sucker in the Green River Basin, Utah and 

Colorado, Determined from Basinwide Monitoring and Other Sampling Programs, Larval Fish 

Laboratory, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colo. 

Bezzerides, N., and K. Bestgen, 2002, Status Review of Roundtail Chub, Gila Robusta, 

Flannelmouth Sucker, Catostomus Latipinnis, and Bluehead Sucker, Catostomus discobolus, 

in the Colorado River Basin, Larval Fish Lab Contribution 118, Colorado State University, 

Fort Collins, Colo. 

Birdnature.com, 2001, North American Migration Flyways. Available at http://www.bird 

nature.com/flyways.html. Accessed Sept. 26, 2006. 

Blackett, R.E., 1996, Tar-Sand Resources of the Uinta Basin, Utah: A Catalog of Deposits, 

Open-File Report 335, Utah Geological Survey. 

BLM (Bureau of Land Management), 1980, Green RiverHams Fork Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement: Coal, Denver, Colo. 

BLM, 1981, Planning for Recreation Resources, BLM Handbook 8320, U.S. Department of the 

Interior. 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-295 

BLM, 1983a, Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Prototype Oil Shale 

Leasing Program, Colorado State Office, Denver, Colo., Jan. 

BLM, 1983b, Final Environmental Impact Statement on the Glenwood Springs Resource 

Management Plan, Glenwood Springs, Colo., June. 

BLM, 1983c, Final Environmental Impact Statement, Uintah Basin Synfuels Development, 

Vol. 1, U.S. Department of the Interior, Feb. 

BLM, 1984a, Visual Resource Management Handbook, BLM Handbook 8400, Release 8-24, 

U.S. Department of the Interior, April. 

BLM, 1984b, Utah Combined Hydrocarbon Leasing Regional Final EIS, Volume 1: Regional 

Analyses, Utah State Office, Salt Lake City, Utah, June. 

BLM, 1985a, Record of Decision and Rangeland Program Summary for the Book Cliffs 

Resource Management Plan, Vernal District Office, Utah, May. 

BLM, 1985b, Piceance Basin Resource Management Plan, White River Field Office, Colo. 

BLM, 1985c, Grand Junction Resource Area Management Plan and Environmental Impact 

Statement, Draft, Grand Junction District, Colo., March. 

BLM, 1986a, Visual Resource Inventory, BLM Manual Handbook 8410-1, Release 8-28, 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Jan. 17. 

BLM, 1986b, Visual Resource Contrast Rating, BLM Manual Handbook 8431-1, Release 8-30, 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Jan. 17. 

BLM, 1987a, Grand Junction Resource Area Resource Management Plan and Record of 

Decision, Grand Junction District, Colo., Jan. 

BLM, 1987b, San Juan Resource Management Plan Proposed Resource Management Plan, 

Final Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. 1, San Juan Resource Area, Moab District, Utah, 

Sept. 

BLM, 1987c, Salinity Control on BLM-administered Public Lands in the Colorado River Basin: 

A Report to Congress, BLM Service Center, Denver, Colo. 

BLM, 1988, Record of Decision and Resource Management Plan, Glenwood Springs Resource 

Area, Grand Junction District, Colo., June. 

BLM, 1991a, San Rafael Final Resource Management Plan, Moab District, San Rafael Resource 

Area, Utah, May. 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-296 

BLM, 1991b, Resource Management Plan Record of Decision and Rangeland Program 

Summary for the San Juan Resource Area, Moab District, Utah, Utah, March. 

BLM, 1994a, Diamond Mountain Resource Area Resource Management Plan and Record of 

Decision, Vernal District Office, Utah. 

BLM, 1994b, White River Resource Area Draft Resource Management Plan and Environmental 

Impact Statement, Craig District, Colo., Oct. 

BLM, 1996, White River Resource Area Proposed Resource Management Plan and Final 

Environmental Impact Statement, Colorado State Office, White River Resource Area, Craig 

District, Colo., June. 

BLM, 1997a, White River Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan, White 

River Resource Area, Craig District, Meeker, Colo., July. 

BLM, 1997b, Record of Decision and Green River Resource Management Plan, Green River 

Resource Area, Rock Springs District Office, Wyo., Oct. 

BLM, 1998, Paleontological Resource Management, BLM Manual 8270. 

BLM, 1999a, Grand StaircaseEscalante National Monument Approved Management Plan 

Record of Decision, Grand StaircaseEscalante National Monument, Cedar City, Utah, Nov. 

BLM, 1999b, Glenwood Springs Resource Area Oil & Gas Leasing & Development Record of 

Decision and Resource Management Plan Amendment, Colorado State Office, March. 

BLM, 2001a, Environmental Assessment Record, Oil Shale Withdrawal Revocation/RMP 

Amendments, Grand Junction Field Office, White River Field Office, and Glenwood Springs 

Field Office, Nov. 

BLM, 2001b, Recreation Guide to the San Rafael Area, Price Field Office, Price, Utah. 

Available at http://www.blm.gov/utah/price/SanRafaelDesert.htm. Accessed June 1, 2006. 

BLM, 2002a, Mineral Potential Report for Price Field Office, Carbon and Emery Counties, 

Utah, Price Field Office, Utah, Aug. 

BLM, 2002b, Mineral Potential Report for the Vernal Planning Area, Vernal Field Office, Utah, 

Oct. 

BLM, 2002c, Decision Record, Finding of No Significant Impact and Environmental Assessment 

for 2-D Seismic Exploration by Veritas DGC Land, Inc., Uintah County, Utah, EA No. UT-080-

2002-21, Vernal Field Office, Utah, Oct. 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-297 

BLM, 2002d, personal communication from K. Bartel (Bureau of Land Management, Vernal 

Field Office, Vernal, Utah) to D. Harris (SWCA Environmental Consultants, Vernal, Utah), 

April 2. 

BLM, 2003, Kemmerer Field Office Planning Area: Summary of the Management Situation 

Analysis, Kemmerer, Wyo., Nov. 

BLM, 2004a, Kemmerer Field Office Planning Area Mineral Assessment Report, Kemmerer 

Field Office, Wyo., Jan. 

BLM, 2004b, Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated 

Activity Plan, Proposed Green River Resource Management Plan Amendment, Rock Springs 

Field Office, Wyo., July. 

BLM, 2004c, Draft Roan Plateau Resource Management Plan Amendment and Environmental 

Impact Statement, Colorado State Office, Glenwood Springs Field Office, Colo., Nov. 

BLM, 2004d, Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated 

Activity Plan, Proposed Green River Resource Management Plan Amendment, Rock Springs 

Field Office, Wyo., July. 

BLM, 2004e, Rawlins Resource Management Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Statement, 

Rawlins Field Office, Wyo., Dec. 

BLM, 2004f, Environmental Assessment for the West Tavaputs Plateau Drilling Program, 

Carbon and Duchesne Counties, Utah, UT-070-2004-28, Price Field Office, Price, Utah, July. 

BLM, 2004g, Cultural Resources Class I Regional Overview, Bureau of Land Management, 

Kemmerer Field Office, Kemmerer, Wyo. 

BLM, 2005a, Mineral Potential Report, Richfield Field Office, Utah, March. 

BLM, 2005b, Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario for Oil and Gas, Richfield Field 

Office, Utah, March. 

BLM, 2005c, Wild and Scenic River Eligibility and Tentative Classification Report, Richfield 

Field Office, Utah, March. 

BLM, 2005d, Evaluation Report, Areas of Critical Environmental Concern, Richfield Resource 

Management Plan, Richfield Field Office, Utah, Jan. 

BLM, 2005e, Draft Resource Management Plan Revision and Environmental Impact Statement 

for the Vernal Field Office Planning Area, Vernal Field Office, Utah, Jan. 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-298 

BLM, 2005f, West Douglas Herd Area Amendment to the White River Resource Management 

Plan, Environmental Assessment (CO-WRFO-05-083-EA), White River Field Office, Colo., 

April. 

BLM, 2006a, Roan Plateau Planning Area, Including Former Naval Oil Shale Reserves 

Numbers 1 and 3, Resource Management Plan Amendment and Environmental Impact 

Statement, Colorado State Office, Aug. 

BLM, 2006b, Record of Decision and Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated Activity Plan/Green River 

Resource Management Plan Amendment, Rock Springs Field Office, Wyo., July. 

BLM, 2006c, Monticello Field Office Mineral Potential Report, Monticello Field Office, Utah. 

Available at http://www.blm.gov/rmp/ut/monticello/MFO_MPR.htm. Accessed July 7, 2006. 

BLM, 2006d, Environmental Assessment: 9 APDs for Wells Piceance Creek Unit (PCU): 

PCU T75X-3G1, -3G2, -3G3, -3G4, -3G5, -3G6, -3G7, -3G8, & -3G9, CO-110-2006-009-EA, 

White River Field Office, Meeker, Colo. 

BLM, 2006e, Resource Development Group Uinta Basin Natural Gas Project: Final 

Environmental Impact Statement, UT-080-2003-0300V, Vernal Field Office, Vernal, Utah, May. 

BLM, 2006f, San Rafael Swell Study. Available at http://www.ut.blm.gov/sanrafaelswell/ 

objectsofinterest/ecology.htm. Accessed July 18, 2006. 

BLM, 2006g, Environmental Assessment, Shell Oil Shale Research, Development and 

Demonstration Projects, Rio Blanco County, Colorado, CO-110-2006-117-EA, White River 

Field Office, Meeker, Colo., Nov. 

BLM, 2006h, Environmental Assessment, Chevron Oil Shale Research, Development & 

Demonstration, CO-110-2006-120-EA, White River Field Office, Meeker, Colo., Nov. 

BLM, 2006i, personal communication from D. Hanson (BLM Wyoming State Office) to 

T. Patton (Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Ill.), June 20. 

BLM, 2007a, Record of Decision for the Approval of Portions of the Roan Plateau Management 

Plan Amendment and Environmental Impact Statement, Glenwood Springs Field Office, Colo., 

June. 

BLM, 2007b, Price Field Office Supplemental Draft Resource Management Plan and 

Environmental Impact Statement for Non-Wilderness Study Area (WSA) Lands with Wilderness 

Characteristics, Price Field Office, Utah, Sept. 

BLM, 2007c, Potential Fossil Yield Classification (PFYC) System for Paleontological Resources 

on Public Lands, Instruction Memorandum No. 2008-009, with attachments, Washington, D.C., 

Oct. 15. 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-299 

BLM, 2007d, personal communication from C. Hollowed (Bureau of Land Management, White 

River Field Office, Meeker, Colo.) to J. May (Argonne National Laboratory, Lakewood, Colo.), 

Feb. 14. 

BLM, 2008a, Record of Decision for the Resource Management Plan Amendment for Portions of 

the Roan Plateau Planning Area Designated as Areas of Critical Environmental Concern Public 

Lands in Garfield County, CO, March. 

BLM, 2008b, Assessment and Mitigation of Potential Impacts to Paleontological Resources, 

Instruction Memorandum No. 2009-011, with attachments, Washington, D.C., Oct. 10. 

BLM, 2008c, Proposed Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

for Public Lands Administered by the BLM Rawlins Field Office, Rawlins, Wyo., Jan. 

BLM, 2008d, Proposed Resource Management Plan Revision and Final Environmental Impact 

Statement for the Vernal Field Office Planning Area, Vernal Field Office, Utah, Aug. 

BLM, 2008e, Proposed Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

for the Price Field Office, Price Field Office, Utah, Aug.

BLM, 2008f, Record of Decision, Monticello Field Office Resource Management Plan, 

Monticello Field Office, Utah, Nov. 

BLM, 2008g, Record of Decision, Price Field Office Resource Management Plan, Price, Utah, 

Oct. 

BLM, 2008h, Special Status Species Management, BLM Manual 6840, Dec. 12. 

BLM, 2008i, Richfield Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management 

Plan, BLM-UT-PL-09-002-1610 UT-050-2007-090 EIS, Richfield Field Office, Richfield, 

Utah, Oct. Available at http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/ut/richfield_fo/planning/ 

rmp/rod_approved_rmp.Par.29760.File.dat/Richfield%20Final%20Plan.pdf. Accessed 

Nov. 8, 2011. 

BLM, 2009, A New Paleontology Law: Paleontological Resources Preservation under the 

Omnibus Public Lands Act of 2009, brochure, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 

Available at http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/ut/natural_resources/cultural/paleo/ 

paleontology_opla-prp.Par.22491.File.dat/PRP%20print.pdf. Accessed Aug. 30, 2011. 

BLM, 2010a, Record of Decision, Kemmerer Resource Management Plan, Kemmerer Field 

Office, Wyo., May. 

BLM, 2010b, Sage-Grouse and Sagebrush Conservation. Available at http://www.blm.gov/wo/ 

st/en/prog/more/sage_grouse_home2.html. Accessed Sept. 28, 2011. 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-300 

BLM, 2011a, Herd Area (HA) and Herd Management Area (HMA) Data for Fiscal Years 2005-

2011, Wild Horse and Burro Program, Washington, D.C. Available at http://www.blm.gov/ 

wo/st/en/prog/wild_horse_and_burro/wh_b_information_center/statistics_and_maps/ha_and_ 

hma_data.html. Accessed Sept. 28, 2011. 

BLM, 2011b, Idaho’s Wildlife: Sensitive Species, Greater Sage-Grouse. Available at 

http://www.blm.gov/id/st/en/prog/wildlife/sensitive_species/greater_sage-grouse.html. Accessed 

Sept. 28, 2011. 

BLM, 2011c, personal communication from L. Belmonte (Bureau of Land Management, White 

River Field Office, Meeker, Colo.) to M. Grippo (Argonne National Laboratory), Dec. 1. 

BOR (U.S. Bureau of Reclamation), 1988, Hydrologic Determination on Water Availability from 

Navajo Reservoir and the Upper Colorado River Basin for Use in New Mexico, U.S. Department 

of the Interior, Feb. 2. 

BOR, 1995, Operation of Glen Canyon Dam: Colorado River Storage Project: Final 

Environmental Statement, March. Available at http://www.usbr.gov/uc/library/envdocs/eis/gc/ 

pdfs/Cov-con/cov-con.pdf. Accessed Oct. 6, 2011. 

BOR, 2004, Colorado River System Consumptive Uses and Losses Report 1996–2000, 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Feb. 

BOR, 2005, Operation of Flaming Gorge Dam Final Environmental Impact Statement, 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Upper Colorado Region, Salt Lake City, 

Utah, Sept. 

BOR, 2006, Duchesne River Solar-Powered Automation Network. Available at 

http://www.usbr.gov/uc/provo/progact/ca/proj_duchesne.html. Accessed May 5, 2006. 

Boulding, E., 1981, “Women as Integrators and Stabilizers,” pp. 119149 in Women and the 

Social Cost of Energy Development: Two Colorado Case Studies, E. Moen et al. (editors), 

Westview Press, Boulder, Colo. 

Boulton, A.J., and P.S. Lake, 2008, “Effects of Drought on Stream Insects and Its Ecological 

Consequences,” Chapter 5 in Aquatic Insects: Challenges to Populations, proceedings of the 

Royal Entomological Society’s 24th symposium, J. Lancaster and R.A. Briers (editors), CABI 

International, Cambridge, Mass. 

Bowen, K., 2012, Record of 6/6/12 Oil Shale PEIS Tribal Consultation with Alden Naranjo, 

NAGPRA Coordinator, Southern Ute Indian Tribe, Bureau of Land Management, White River 

Field Office, Meeker, Colo., June 28. 

Boyle, K.J., and R.C. Bishop, 1987, “Valuing Wildlife in Cost-Benefit Analyses: A Case Study 

Involving Endangered Species,” Water Resources Research 23:943950. 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-301 

Brookshire, D.S., and R.C. D’Arge, 1980, “Adjustment Issues of Impacted Communities or Are 

Boomtowns Bad?” Natural Resources Journal 20:523546. 

Brown, R.B., et al., 1989, “Community Satisfaction and Social Integration in a Boomtown: A 

Longitudinal Analysis,” Rural Sociology 54:568586. 

Brown, R.B., et al., 2005, “The Boom-Bust-Recovery Cycle: Dynamics of Change in 

Community Satisfaction and Social Integration in Delta, Utah,” Rural Sociology 70:28–49. 

Carbon County, Utah, 2004, Carbon County Financial Statements for the Year Ended 

December 31, 2004, Board of County Commissioners, Carbon County, Price, Utah. 

Carbon County, Wyoming, 2006, Financial and Compliance Report, June 30, 2006.

Carson, R.T., et al., 1992, “Contingent Valuation and Lost Passive Use: Damages from the 

Exxon Valdez Oil Spill,” Environmental and Resource Economics 25:257286. 

Carter, B., and W.A. Hubert, 1995, “Factors Influencing Fish Assemblages of a High-Elevation 

Desert Stream System in Wyoming,” Great Basin Naturalist 55:169–173. 

Cashion, W.B., 1964, The Distribution and Quality of Oil Shale in the Green River Formation of 

the Uinta Basin, Utah–Colorado, Professional Paper 501-D, U.S. Geological Survey. 

Cashion, W.B., 1967, Geology and Fuel Resources of the Green River Formation, Southeastern 

Uinta Basin, Utah and Colorado, Professional Paper 548, U.S. Geological Survey. 

Cayan, D.R., et al., 2010, “Future Dryness in the Southwest US and the Hydrology of the Early 

21st Century Drought,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 107:21271–21276. 

CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention), 2006, Marriage and Divorce Rates by State: 

1990, 1995, 19992002, National Center for Health Statistics, Division of Vital Statistics. 

Available at http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvss/mar%26div.pdf. Accessed July 2006. 

CDC, 2011, Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD), National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic 

Infectious Diseases, Division of High-Consequence Pathogens and Pathology. Available at 

http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvrd/cwd. Accessed Sept. 26, 2011. 

CDOT (Colorado Department of Transportation), 2004, Colorado Highway System Traffic 

Volume Map. Available at http://www.dot.state.co.us/App_DTD_DataAccess/Downloads/ 

TrafficVolumeMaps/TVMap1.pdf. Accessed Oct. 6, 2011. 

CDOW (Colorado Division of Wildlife), 2001, Colorado’s Amphibians & Reptiles, 

Species Status, Regulations, Information as of January 2001, Denver, Colo. Available at 

http://wildlife.state.co.us/SiteCollectionDocuments/DOW/RulesRegs/HerpReport.pdf. 

Accessed Sept. 20, 2011. 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-302 

CDOW, 2011, Checklist of Colorado Mammals, Denver, Colo. Available at http://wildlife.state. 

co.us/WildlifeSpecies/Profiles/Mammals/Pages/ChecklistofColoradoMammals.aspx. Accessed 

Sept. 30, 2011. 

CDPHE (Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment), 2009, The Basic 

Standards for Ground Water, 5 CCR 1002-41, Regulation No. 41, Water Quality 

Control Commission. Available at http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/regulations/wqccregs/ 

10024basicstandardsforgroundwater.pdf. Accessed Nov. 7, 2011. 

CDPHE, 2012a, Colorado’s Section 303(d) List of Impaired Waters and Monitoring and 

Evaluation List, Water Quality Control Commission, 5 CCR 1002-93, Regulation 93. 

Available at http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/regulations/wqccregs/93_2012(03).pdf. Accessed 

April 25, 2012. 

CDPHE, 2012b, Source Water and Wellhead Protection. Available at http://www.cdphe.state. 

co.us/wq/drinkingwater/SWAP.html. Accessed June 12, 2012. 

CDPHE, 2012c, 2008 Air Pollutant Emissions Inventory. Available at http://www.colorado. 

gov/airquality/inv_maps_2008.aspx. Accessed July 11, 2012. 

CDPHE, 2012d, Air Quality Standards, Designations and Emission Budgets, 5 CCR 1001-14, 

Colorado Air Quality Control Commission. Available at http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/ 

regulations/airregs/5CCR1001-14.pdf. Accessed July 20, 2012. 

Center for Native Ecosystems, 2006a, Oil and Gas Drilling Threatens South Shale Ridge and 

Roan Plateau Wildflower with Extinction. Available at http://www.nativeecosystems.org/ 

newsroom/imported.2006-05-11.183224. Accessed July 7, 2006.

Center for Native Ecosystems, 2006b, Endangered Species Act Protection Finally Proposed for 

Wildflower. Available at http://www.nativeecosystems.org/newsroom/imported.2006-05-11. 

183213-1. Accessed July 5, 2006. 

Center for Native Ecosystems, 2006c, Parachute Penstemon. Available at http://www.native 

ecosystems.org/species/parachute-penstemon. Accessed July 9, 2006. 

CEQ (Council on Environmental Quality), 1997, Environmental Justice Guidance under the 

National Environmental Policy Act, Executive Office of the President, Washington, D.C. 

Available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/CEQ. Accessed July 2006. 

Chadwick Ecological Consultants, 2002, Progress Report for Biological Sampling of the Yellow 

Creek Drainage, Colorado, prepared for NorWest Mine Service, Inc., spring. 

Chapman, S.S., et al., 2004, Ecoregions of Wyoming, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Va. 

Chapman, S.S., et al., 2006, Ecoregions of Colorado, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Va. 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-303 

Chart, T.E., and L.D. Lentsch, 1999, Flow Effects on Humpback Chub (Gila cypha) in Westwater 

Canyon, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City, Utah. 

CIRA (Cooperative Institute for Research in the Atmosphere), 2006, Interagency Monitoring of 

Protected Visual Environments. Available at http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/IMPROVE. Accessed 

June 2006. 

City of Craig, Colorado, 2003, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, Year Ending 

July 31, 2003. 

City of Delta, Colorado, 2004, City of Delta, Colorado, Financial Statements and Independent 

Auditor’s Report, December 31, 2004. 

City of Evanston, Wyoming, 2005, City of Evanston, Wyoming, Comprehensive Annual 

Financial Report, Year Ended June 30, 2005. 

City of Fruita, Colorado, 2005, City of Fruita Financial Statements, Fiscal Year Ended 

December 31, 2005. 

City of Glenwood Springs, Colorado, 2004, City of Glenwood Springs, Colorado, Financial 

Report, December 31, 2004. 

City of Grand Junction, Colorado, 2004, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, Year Ended 

Dec. 31, 2004. 

City of Green River, Wyoming, 2004, City of Green River, Wyoming, Report of Independent 

Certified Public Accountants and Financial Statements, June 30, 2004. 

City of Kemmerer, Wyoming, 2005, City of Kemmerer, Wyoming, Report of Independent 

Certified Public Accountants and Financial Statements, June 30, 2005. 

City of Moab, Utah, 2006, City of Moab, Utah, Independent Auditors’ Report, Basic Financial 

Statements, Year Ended June 30, 2006. 

City of Rawlins, Wyoming, 2005, City of Rawlins, Wyoming, Financial Report, June 30, 2005. 

City of Rifle, Colorado, 2004, City of Rifle, Colorado, Basic Financial Statements, 

December 31, 2004. 

City of Rock Springs, Wyoming, 2005, City of Rock Springs, Wyoming, Financial and 

Compliance Report, June 30, 2005. 

COGCC (Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission), 2009, “Noise Abatement,” 

Number 802 in Aesthetic and Noise Control Regulations, April 1. Available at http://cogcc.state. 

co.us/rr_docs_new/FinalRulesTBLNew2.cfm. Accessed Sept. 26, 2011. 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-304 

Colorado Bureau of Investigation, 2006, Crime in Colorado—Annual Report: 2003. Available at 

http://cbi.state.co.us/dr/cic2k3/agencylist.asp. Accessed July 2006. 

Colorado Field Ornithologists, 2008, Checklist of the Birds of Garfield County. Available at 

http://www.coloradocountybirding.com/checklists/checklist.php?id=24&flag=pdf&name= 

Garfield. Accessed Sept. 21, 2011. 

Colorado Field Ornithologists, 2010, Checklist of the Birds of Rio Blanco County. Available at 

http://www.coloradocountybirding.com/checklists/checklist.php?id=53&flag=pdf&name= 

RioBlanco. Accessed Sept. 21, 2011. 

Colorado Field Ornithologists, 2011, Checklist of the Birds of Colorado. Available at 

http://www.coloradocountybirding.com/checklists/checklist.php?flag=pdf&name=Colorado. 

Accessed Sept. 21, 2011. 

Colorado Rare Plant Technical Committee, 1999, Colorado Rare Plant Field Guide. Available at 

http://www.cnhp.colostate.edu/rareplants/cover.html. Accessed May 17, 2008. 

Colorado State Demography Office, 2007, State Demography Office. Available at 

http://www.dola.state.co.us/demog. Accessed March 2007. 

Colorado State Parks, 2006a, home page. Available at http://parks.state.co.us. 

Colorado State Parks, 2006b, Natural Areas Program. Available at http://parks.state.co.us/ 

cnap/Natural_Areas/NA%20pages/dudley.htm. Accessed July 1, 2006. 

Cook, N., et al., 2010, “Persistence of Colorado River Cutthroat Trout Populations in 

Isolated Headwater Streams of Wyoming,” Transactions of the American Fisheries 

Society 139:1500–1510. 

Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology, 2006, All About Birds, Bird Guide—Whooping Crane. 

Available at http://www.birds.cornell.edu/AllAboutBirds/BirdGuide/Whooping_Crane_ dtl.html. 

Accessed July 15, 2006. 

Cortese, C.F., 1982, “The Impacts of Rapid Growth on Local Organizations and Community 

Services,” pp. 115136 in Coping with Rapid Growth in Rural Communities, B. Weber and 

R. Howell (editors), Westview Press, Boulder, Colo. 

Cortese, C.F., and B. Jones, 1977, “The Sociological Analysis of Boom Towns,” Western 

Sociological Review 8:7690. 

Cowardin, L., et al., 1979, Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the 

United States, FWS/OBS-79, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-305 

CPC (Center for Plant Conservation), 2006a, CPC National Collection Plant Profile, Ranunculus 

aestivali. Available at http://www.centerforplantconservation.org/ASP/CPC_ViewProfile.asp? 

CPCNum=3705. Accessed July 16, 2006.

CPC, 2006b, CPC National Collection Plant Profile, Schoenocrambe barnebyi. Available at 

http://www.centerforplantconservation.org/ASP/CPC_ViewProfile.asp?CPCNum=3871. 

Accessed July 17, 2006. 

CPC, 2006c, CPC National Collection Plant Profile, Lesquerella congesta. Available at 

http://www.centerforplantconservation.org/ASP/CPC_ViewProfile.asp?CPCNum=6371. 

Accessed July 8, 2006.

CPC, 2006d, CPC National Collection Plant Profile, Physaria obcordata. Available at 

http://www.centerforplantconservation.org/ASP/CPC_ViewProfile.asp?CPCNum=3447. 

Accessed July 1, 2006.

CPC, 2006e, CPC National Collection Plant Profile, Cycladenia humilis var. jonesii. Available 

at http://www.centerforplantconservation.org/ASP/CPC_ViewProfile.asp?CPCNum=1204. 

Accessed July 8, 2006.

CPC, 2006f, CPC National Collection Plant Profile, Erigeron maguirei var. maguirei. Available 

at http://www.centerforplantconservation.org/ASP/CPC_Viewprofile.asp?CPCNum=1654. 

Accessed July 18, 2006. 

CPC, 2006g, CPC National Collection Plant Profile, Carex specuicola. Available at 

http://www.centerforplantonservation.org/ASP/CPC_ViewProfile.asp?CPCNum =789. Accessed 

July 18, 2006.

CPC, 2006h, CPC National Collection Plant Profile, Schlerocactus wrightiae. Available at 

http://www.centerforplantconservation.org/ASP/CPC_ViewProfile.asp?CPCNUM=3891. 

Accessed July 8, 2006.

CPC, 2010, CPC National Collection Plant Profile, Phacelia argillacea. Available at 

http://www.centerforplantconservation.org/collection/CPC_ViewProfile.asp?CPCNum=3340. 

Accessed Sept. 27, 2011. 

CPW (Colorado Parks and Wildlife), 2012, Colorado Greater Sage Grouse Priority 

Habitat/Linkages Shapefile Download. Available at http://www.arcgis.com/home/item. 

html?id=32687e3f2a95432dbc6428f5bde7af29. Accessed June 11, 2012. 

CRBSCF (Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum), 2005, 2005 Review, Water Quality 

Standards for Salinity, Colorado River System, Oct. 

CRCT Conservation Team, 2006, Conservation Agreement for Colorado River Cutthroat Trout 

(Oncorhynchus clarkii pleuriticus) in the States of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming, Colorado 

Division of Wildlife, Fort Collins, Colo. 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-306 

Culburtson, W.C., and Pitman, J.K., 1973, “Oil Shale in United States Mineral Resources,” 

Professional Paper 820 in United States Mineral Resources, D.A. Probst and W.P. Pratt (editors), 

U.S. Geological Survey. 

CWCB (Colorado Water Conservation Board), 2002, Yampa and White River Basin 

Facts. Available at http://cwcb.state.co.us/Board/Fact_Sheets/YampaW_fs.pdf. Accessed 

May 25, 2006. 

CWCB, 2004, Statewide Water Supply Initiative, Colorado Department of Natural Resources, 

Denver, Colo., Nov. 

CWCB, 2011, Colorado’s Water Supply Future, Statewide Water Supply Initiative 2010, 

Colorado Department of Natural Resources, Denver, Colo., Jan. Available at http://cwcb.state. 

co.us/water-management/water-supply-planning/Documents/SWSI2010/SWSI2010.pdf. 

Accessed June 7, 2012. 

CWS and USFWS (Canadian Wildlife Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), 2007, 

International Recovery Plan for the Whooping Crane, Ottawa: Recovery of Nationally 

Endangered Wildlife (RENEW), and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, N.M. 

Czyzewski, G., 2000, “The Piceance Creek Basin,” pp. 63–66 in Colorado Ground-Water Atlas: 

Colorado Ground-Water Association, A. Aikin et al. (editors), Lakewood, Colo. 

Delta County, Colorado, 2005, Delta County, Colorado, Basic Financial Statements, Year Ended 

December 31, 2005, Board of Commissioners, Delta County, Delta, Colo. 

Dixon, M., 1978, What Happened to Fairbanks? The Effects of the Trans-Alaska Oil Pipeline in 

the Community of Fairbanks, Alaska, Westview Press, Boulder, Colo. 

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 1982, Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement 

on Development Policy Options for the Naval Oil Shale Reserves in Colorado, Environmental 

Protection Assistant Secretary, Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Office of Naval Petroleum 

and Oil Shale Reserves. 

DOI (U.S. Department of the Interior), 1973, Final Environmental Statement for the Prototype 

Oil Shale Leasing Program, Volume I of VI, Regional Impacts of Oil Shale Development, 

Washington, D.C. 

DOI, 1994, “Natural Resource Damage Assessments: Final Rule,” Federal Register

59:1426114288. 

DOI, 2000, Assessment of Fossil Management on Federal and Indian Lands, May. 

DOI, 2005, “Salinity Control Program,” in Quality of Water: Colorado River Basin, Progress 

Report No. 22, Final Draft. Available at http://www.usbr.gov/uc/progact/salinity/index.html. 

Accessed May 25, 2006. 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-307 

Duchesne County, Utah, 2004, Duchesne County Financial Statements, Year Ending 

December 31, 2004, County Commissioners, Duchesne County, Duchesne, Utah. 

Dunne, T., and L.B. Leopold, 1978, Water in Environmental Planning, W.H. Freeman and 

Company, New York, N.Y. 

Dyni, J.R., 2003, “Geology and Resources of Some World Oil-Shale Deposits,” Oil Shale

20(3):193–252. 

Ebi, K.L., et al., 2007, Regional Impacts of Climate Change: Four Case Studies in the 

United States, prepared for Pew Center on Global Climate Change, Dec. Available at 

http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/Regional-Impacts-FullReport.pdf. Accessed 

Oct. 10, 2011. 

Emery County, Utah, 2004, Emery County Financial Statements December 31, 2004, Emery 

County Clerk/Auditor, Castle Dale, Utah. 

Emmerich, J., 2011, personal communication from Emmerich (Bureau of Land Management, 

Cheyenne, Wyo.) to M. Grippo (Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Ill.), Nov. 10. 

England, J.L., and S.L. Albrecht, 1984, “Boomtowns and Social Disruption,” Rural 

Sociology 49:230246. 

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 1974, Information on Levels of Environmental 

Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety, 550/ 

9-74-004, Office of Noise Abatement and Control, March. Available at http://www.nonoise.org/ 

library/levels74/levels74.htm. Accessed Sept. 26, 2011. 

EPA, 2010, Climate Change Indicators in the United States, EPA 430-R-10-007, Washington, 

D.C., April. Available at http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/indicators/pdfs/ClimateIndicators_ 

full.pdf. Accessed Nov. 16, 2011. 

EPA, 2011a, State of Knowledge. Available at http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/ 

stateofknowledge.html, last updated April 14, 2011. Accessed Oct. 9, 2011. 

EPA, 2011b, AirData: Monitor Values Report—Criteria Air Pollutants. Available at http://www. 

epa.gov/oar/data/geosel.html. Accessed Sept. 21, 2011. 

EPA, 2011c, Clean Air Status and Trends Network (CASTNET). Available at http://java.epa.gov/ 

castnet. Accessed Sept. 23, 2011. 

EPA, 2012a, 2008 National Emissions Inventory Data. Available at http://www.epa.gov/ 

ttnchie1/net/2008inventory.html. Accessed July 11, 2012. 

EPA, 2012b, National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Available at http://www.epa. 

gov/air/criteria.html, last updated July 16, 2012. Accessed July 20, 2012. 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-308 

EPA, 2012c, The Green Book Nonattainment Areas for Criteria Pollutants. Available at 

http://www.epa.gov/oaqps001/greenbk, last updated June 14, 2012. Accessed July 12, 2012. 

Everard M., 1996, “The Importance of Periodic Droughts for Maintaining Diversity in the 

Freshwater Environment,” Freshwater Forum 7:33–50. 

Exxon Mobil, 2006, Exxon Mobil Piceance Development Project Environmental Assessment, 

Socioeconomic Technical Report, prepared for Bureau of Land Management, White River Field 

Office, May. 

FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation), 2011, Crime in the United States: 2009. Available at 

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010. 

Feeney, D., et al., 2004, Big Game Migration Corridors in Wyoming, University of Wyoming, 

Wyoming Open Spaces Initiative, Laramie, Wyo. Available at http://www.uwyo.edu/ 

openspaces/docs/MigrationCorridors.pdf. Accessed April 24, 2006. 

Fire Departments Network, 2011, Fire Departments by State. Available at http://www. 

firedepartments.net. 

Frankel, A.D., et al., 2002, Documentation for the 2002 Update of the National Seismic 

Hazard Maps, Open-File Report 02-420, U.S. Geological Survey. Available at 

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/ research/ hazmaps/products_data/48_States/index.php. Accessed 

July 5, 2006. 

Freudenburg, W.R., 1984, “Boomtown’s Youth: The Differential Impacts of Rapid Community 

Growth on Adolescents and Adults,” American Sociological Review 49:697705. 

Freudenburg, W.R., 1986, “The Density of Acquaintanceship: An Overlooked Variable in 

Community Research?” American Journal of Sociology 92:2763. 

Freudenburg, W.R., and R.E. Jones, 1991, “Criminal Behavior and Rapid Community Growth: 

Examining the Evidence,” Rural Sociology 56:619645. 

Freudenburg, W.R., et al., 1982, “Mental Health Consequences of Rapid Growth: A Report from 

the Longitudinal Study of Boom Town Mental Health Impacts,” Journal of Health and Human 

Resources Administration 4:334352. 

Garfield County, Utah, 2004, Garfield County, Utah, Financial Statements and Supplementary 

Information with Independent Auditor’s Report, Year Ended December 31, 2004, Board of 

County Commissioners, Panguitch, Utah. 

Gilmore, J.S., 1976, “Boom Towns May Hinder Energy Resource Development,” Science

191:535540. 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-309 

Gilmore, J.S., and M.K. Duff, 1975, Boomtown Growth Management, Westview Press, Boulder, 

Colo. 

GISS (Goddard Institute for Space Studies), 2011, GISS Surface Temperature Analysis, National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). Available at http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ 

graphs, last updated Sept. 12, 2011. Accessed Oct. 10, 2011. 

Glassett, J.M., and J.A. Glassett, 1976, The Production of Oil from Intermountain West Tar 

Sands Deposits, Final Report to United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines, 

Eyring Research Institute, Provo, Utah. 

Glover, K.C., 1996, Ground-Water Flow in the Duchesne River–Uinta Aquifer, Uinta Basin, 

Utah and Colorado, Water-Resources Investigations Report 92-4161, U.S. Geological Survey. 

Glover, K.C., et al., 1998, Geohydrology of Tertiary Rocks in the Upper Colorado River Basin 

in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming, Excluding the San Juan Basin, U.S. Geological Survey, 

Water-Resources Investigations Report 96-4105. 

Gold, R.L., 1982, “Commentary on Local Social Disruption and Western Energy-Development: 

A Critical Review by Wilkinson, K.P. et al.,” Pacific Sociological Review 25:349356. 

Goodrich, S., and E. Neese, 1986, Uinta Basin Flora, USDA Forest Service – Intermountain 

Region, in cooperation with USDA Forest Service Ashley National Forest and DOI Bureau of 

Land Management. 

Grand County, Utah, 2004, Grand County Financial Statements for the Year Ended 

December 31, 2004, Grand County Council, Moab, Utah. 

Greider, T., and R.S. Krannich, 1985, “Neighboring Patterns, Social Support and Rapid Growth: 

A Comparison Analysis from Three Western Communities,” Sociological Perspectives

28:5170. 

Greider, T., et al., 1991, “Local Identity, Solidarity, and Trust in Changing Rural Communities,” 

Sociological Focus 24:263282. 

Gryska, A.D., and W.A. Hubert, 1997, “Observations on the Reproduction, Sources of Mortality, 

and Diet of the Kendall Warm Springs Dace,” Great Basin Naturalist 57:338–342. 

Gulliford, A., 1989, Boomtown Blues: Colorado Oil Shale, 1885–1985, University of Colorado 

Press, Boulder, Colo. 

Gutermuth, F.B., et al., 1994, “Collection of Age-0 Razorback Suckers (Xyrauchen texanus) in 

the Lower Green River, Utah,” Southwestern Naturalist 39:389–391. 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-310 

Hahn, W.F., and C.A. Jessen, 2001, Green River Basin Water Plan, Technical Memorandum: 

Available Ground Water Determination. Available at http://waterplan.state.wy.us/plan/green/ 

techmemos/techmemos.html. Accessed May 25, 2006. 

Hamman, R.L, 1981, “Spawning and Culture of Colorado Squawfish in Raceways,” Progressive 

Fish-Culturist 43:173–177. 

Harris, C.M. (editor), 1991, Handbook of Acoustical Measurements and Noise Control, 3rd ed., 

McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, N.Y. 

Hatton, T., 2000, “White River Basin,” pp. 41–43 in Colorado Ground-Water Atlas, A. Aikin 

et al. (editors), Colorado Ground-Water Association, Lakewood, Colo. 

Haynes, C.M., et al., 1984, “Larval Colorado Squawfish (Ptychocheilus lucius) in the Upper 

Colorado River Basin, Colorado, 1979–1981,” Southwestern Naturalist 29:21–33. 

Hendrickson, D.A., 1993, Progress Report on a Study of the Utility of Data Obtainable from 

Otoliths to Management of Humpback Chub (Gila cypha) in the Grand Canyon, Arizona Game 

and Fish Department, Phoenix, Ariz. 

Hirsch, C.L., et al., 2006, Range-wide Status of Colorado River Cutthroat Trout (Oncorhynchus 

clarkii pleuriticus): 2005, Colorado River Cutthroat Trout Conservation Team Report, Colorado 

Division of Wildlife, Ft. Collins, Colo. 

Holmes, W.F., and Kimball, B.A., 1987, Ground Water in the Southeastern Uinta Basin, Utah 

and Colorado, Water Supply Paper 2248, U.S. Geological Survey. 

Hood, J.W., and T.W. Danielson, 1981, Bedrock Aquifers in the Lower Dirty Devil River Basin 

Area, Utah, with Special Emphasis on the Navajo Sandstone, Technical Publication No. 68, Utah 

Department of Natural Resources. 

Hood, J.W., and F.K. Fields, 1978, Water Resources of the Northern Uinta Basin Area, Utah and 

Colorado, with Special Emphasis on Ground-Water Supply, Technical Publication No. 62, Utah 

Department of Natural Resources. 

Howe, F.P., and M. Hanberg, 2000, Willow Flycatcher and Yellow-Billed Cuckoo Surveys along 

the Green and San Juan Rivers in Utah, 2000, Publication 00-31, Utah Division of Wildlife 

Resources, Salt Lake City, Utah. 

Hranac, K., 2000, “Ground-Water Quality,” pp. 9–13 in Colorado Ground-Water Atlas, A. Aikin 

et al. (editors), Colorado Ground-Water Association, Lakewood, Colo. 

Hughes, J.M., 1999, “Yellow-Billed Cuckoo,” in The Birds of North America, No. 418, A. Poole 

and F. Gill (editors), Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology and the Academy of Natural Sciences. 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-311 

Hyde, M., 2011, personal communication from Hyde (Duchesne County), to S. Thompson 

(Bureau of Land Management), Nov. 4. 

IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), 2007, Climate Change 2007: The Physical 

Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the 

Interngovernmental Panel on Climate Change, S. Solomon et al. (editors). Available at 

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html. 

Jirovec, R., 1979, “Preparing a Boom Town for the Impact of Rapid Growth,” pp. 7990 in 

BoomTowns and Human Services, J. Davenport and J. Davenport (editors), University of 

Wyoming Press, Laramie, Wyo. 

Kelly, I.T., and C.S. Fowler, 1986, “Southern Paiute,” pp. 368–397 in Handbook of North 

American Indians, Vol. 11 Great Basin, W.L. d’Azevedo (editor), Smithsonian Institution, 

Washington, D.C. 

Koontz, L., and J. Loomis, 2005, Economic Importance of Elk Hunting in Jackson Hole, 

Wyoming, Open-File Report 2005-1183, U.S. Geological Survey, Fort Collins Science Center, 

Fort Collins, Colo. 

Kotamarthi, V.R., and D.J. Holdridge, 2007, Process-Scale Modeling of Elevated Wintertime 

Ozone in Wyoming, ANL/EVS/R-07/7, prepared by Environmental Science Division, Argonne 

National Laboratory, for BP America, Dec. Available at http://www.ipd.anl.gov/anlpubs/ 

2008/01/60757.pdf. Accessed Sept. 23, 2011. 

Krannich, R.S., and T. Greider, 1984, “Personal Well-Being in Rapid Growth and Stable 

Communities: Multiple Indicators and Contrasting Results,” Rural Sociology 49:541552. 

Krannich, R., et al., 1989, “Fear of Crime in Rapidly Changing Communities: A Longitudinal 

Analysis,” Rural Sociology 54:195–212. 

Lake, P.S., 2003, “Ecological Effects of Perturbation by Drought in Flowing Waters,” 

Freshwater Biology 48:1161–1172. 

Lamm, R.D., and McCarthy, M., 1982, The Angry West: A Vulnerable Land and Its Future, 

Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, Mass. 

Lantz, A., and R. McKeown, 1977, Rapid Growth and the Impact on Quality of Life in Rural 

Communities: A Case Study, Denver Research Institute, University of Denver, Denver, Colo. 

Lentsch, L.D., et al., 1996, Options for Selective Control of Nonnative Fishes in the Upper 

Colorado River Basin, Publication No. 96-14, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake 

City, Utah. 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-312 

Lentsch, L.D., et al., 2000, The White River and Endangered Fish Recovery: A Hydrological, 

Physical, and Biological Synopsis, Publication No. 00-37, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, 

Salt Lake City, Utah, Sept. 

Lincoln County, Wyoming, 2006, Lincoln County Financial Statements, June 30, 2006, Board of 

County Commissioners, Kemmerer, Wyo. 

Lincoln, F.C., et al., 1998, Migration of Birds, Circular 16, U.S. Department of the Interior, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C., Jamestown, N.D., Northern Prairie Wildlife 

Research Center Online. Available at http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/birds/migratio/ 

index.htm (Version 02APR 2002). Accessed Sept. 26, 2006. 

Lindskov, K.L., and B.A. Kimball, 1982, Quantity and Quality of Streamflow in the 

Southeastern Uinta Basin, Utah and Colorado, Water Supply Paper 2224, U.S. Geological 

Survey. 

Lindskov, K.L., and B.A. Kimball, 1984, Water Resources and Potential Hydrologic Effects of 

Oil-Shale Development in the Southeastern Uinta Basin, Utah and Colorado, Professional 

Paper 1307, U.S. Geological Survey. 

Little, R.I., 1977, “Some Social Consequences of Boom Towns,” North Dakota Law Review

53:401425. 

Lockhart, J.M., et al., 2006, “A Historical Perspective on Recovery of the Black-footed Ferret 

and the Biological and Political Challenges Affecting Its Future,” in Recovery of the Blackfooted Ferret: Progress and Continuing Challenges, Proceedings of the Symposium on the Status 

of the Black-Footed Ferret and Its Habitat, Jan. 28–29, 2004, Fort Collins, Colo., Scientific 

Investigations Report 2005–5293, J.E. Roelle et al. (editors), U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, 

Va. 

Loomis, J., 2000, Economic Values of Wilderness Recreation and Passive Use: What We Think 

We Know at the Beginning of the 21st Century, U.S. Forest Service Proceedings, RMRS-P-15_ 

VOL-2. 2000. Available at http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_p015_2/rmrs_p015_2_005_ 

013.pdf. Accessed Oct. 7, 2011. 

Loomis, J., and R. Walsh, 1997, Recreation Economic Decisions: Comparing Benefits and 

Costs, Venture Press, State College, Pa. 

Loosle, B., 2012, personal communication from Loosle (Bureau of Land Management, Utah 

State Office, Salt Lake City, Utah) to S. Thompson (Bureau of Land Management, Lakewood, 

Colorado), May 24. 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-313 

Martin, C., and J.C. Miller, 2009a, The Colorado Wickiup Project, Volume IV, Part I: 

Recordation and Re-evaluation of Twenty-seven Aboriginal Wooden Feature Sites in Garfield, 

Mesa, Moffat and Rio Blanco Counties, Colorado, prepared by Dominquez Archaeological 

Research Group, Grand Junction, Colo., for the Colorado Historical Society and the Bureau of 

Land Management, March 14. 

Martin, C., and J.C. Miller, 2009b, The Colorado Wickiup Project, Volume IV, Part II: Ute 

Culture History and an Assessment of NRHP Eligibility for the Yellow Creek Archaeological 

District, prepared by Dominquez Archaeological Research Group, Grand Junction, Colo., for the 

Colorado Historical Society and the Bureau of Land Management, March 14. 

Martin, C., et al., 2005, The Colorado Wickiup Project Volume I: Context, Data Assessment and 

Strategic Planning, prepared by Dominquez Archaeological Research Group, Grand Junction, 

Colo., for the Colorado Historical Society and the Bureau of Land Management, Oct. 12. 

Martin, C., et al., 2010, Test Excavation of The Ute Hunters’ Camp (5RB563) and the 

Documentation of Five Additional Aboriginal Wooden Feature Sites in Rio Blanco County, 

Colorado, Colorado Wickiup Project Volume V, prepared by Dominquez Archaeological 

Research Group, Grand Junction, Colo., for the Colorado Historical Society and the Colorado 

State Office of the Bureau of Land Management, Oct. 

Martineau, D., 2006, Oil Shale and Tar Sands Programmatic EIS, letter from Martineau (The 

Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah, Cedar City, Utah) to G. Terland (Bureau of Land Management, 

Utah State Office, Salt Lake City, Utah), May 25. 

Martinez, P.J., 2011, “Invasive Crayfish in a High Desert River: Implications of Concurrent 

Invaders and Climate Change,” Aquatic Invasions, in press. 

Martinez, P.J., et al., 1994, “Fish Species Composition before and after Construction of a 

Mainstem Reservoir on the White River, Colorado,” Environmental Biology of Fishes

40:227239. 

Mason, J.P., and K.A. Miller, 2004, Water Resources of Sweetwater County, Wyoming, Scientific 

Investigations Report 2004-5214, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Va. 

McAda, C.W., 2003, Flow Recommendations to Benefit Endangered Fishes in the Colorado and 

Gunnison Rivers, final report to Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program, 

July. 

Mesa County, Colorado, 2003, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, Mesa County, 

Colorado, for the Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2003. 

Miller, A.S., and W.A. Hubert, 1990, Compendium of Existing Knowledge for Use in Making 

Habitat Management Recommendations for the Upper Colorado River Basin, final report of the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Wyoming Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, to the 

Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program, Denver, Colo. 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-314 

Miller, N.P., 2002, “Transportation Noise and Recreational Lands,” in InterNoise 2002, 

Proceedings of the 2002 International Congress and Exposition on Noise Control Engineering, 

Aug. 1921, Dearborn, Mich. 

Minckley, W.L., 1973, Fishes of Arizona, Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, Ariz. 

Minckley, W.L., et al., 1991, “Management toward Recovery of the Razorback Sucker,” in 

Battle against Extinction: Native Fish Management in the American West, W.L. Minckley and 

J.E. Deacon (editors), University of Arizona Press, Tucson, Ariz. 

Minckley, W.L., et al., 2003, “A Conservation Plan for Native Fishes of the Lower Colorado 

River,” BioScience 53: 219–234. 

Modde, T., 1996, “Juvenile Razorback Sucker (Xyrauchen texanus) in a Managed Wetland 

Adjacent to the Green River,” Great Basin Naturalist 56:375–376. 

Modde, T., 1997, Fish Use of Old Charley Wash: An Assessment of Floodplain Wetland 

Importance to Razorback Sucker Management and Recovery, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Vernal, Utah. 

Modde, T., and G.B. Haines, 1996, “Brook Stickleback (Culaea inconstans [Kirkland 1841]), a 

New Addition to the Upper Colorado River Basin Fish Fauna,” Great Basin Naturalist 56:281. 

Modde, T., and D.B. Irving, 1998, “Use of Multiple Spawning Sites and Seasonal Movements by 

Razorback Suckers in the Middle Green River, Utah,” North American Journal of Fisheries 

Management 18:318–326. 

Modde, T., and C. Keleher, 2003, Flow Recommendations for the Duchesne River with a 

Synopsis of Information Regarding Endangered Fishes, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Vernal, 

Utah. 

Modde, T., and E.J. Wick, 1997, Investigations of Razorback Sucker Distribution, Movements 

and Habitats Used during Spring in the Green River, Utah, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Vernal, Utah. 

Modde, T., et al., 1996, “Population Status of the Razorback Sucker in the Middle Green River,” 

Conservation Biology 10:110–119. 

Moen, E., et al. (editors), 1981, Women and the Social Cost of Energy Development: Two 

Colorado Case Studies, Westview Press, Boulder, Colo. 

Moffat County, Colorado, 2005, Moffat County, Colorado, Craig, Colorado, Financial 

Statements, December 31, 2005. 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-315 

Morris, R.E., et al., 2009, “Simulation of Wintertime High Ozone Concentrations in 

Southwestern Wyoming,” presented at the 8th Annual CMAS Conference, Chapel Hills, N.C., 

Oct. 19–21. Available at http://www.cmascenter.org/conference/2009/abstracts/morris_ 

simulation_wintertime_2009.pdf. Accessed Sept. 23, 2011. 

Murdock, S.H., and E.C. Schriner, 1979, “Community Service Satisfaction and Stages of 

Community Development: An Examination of Evidence from Impacted Communities,” Journal 

of the Community Development Society 10:109124. 

Murphey, P.C., and D. Daitch, 2007, unpublished information, Argonne National Laboratory, 

Argonne, Ill. 

Muth, R.T., and T.P. Nesler, 1993, Associations among Flow and Temperature Regimes and 

Spawning Periods and Abundance of Young of Selected Fishes, Lower Yampa River, Colorado, 

1980–1984, final report, prepared by Colorado State University Larval Fish Laboratory for 

Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program, Denver, Colo. 

Muth, R.T., and D.E. Snyder, 1995, “Diets of Young Colorado Squawfish and Other Small Fish 

in Backwaters of the Green River, Colorado and Utah,” Great Basin Naturalist 55:95–104. 

Muth, R.T., et al., 1998, Reproduction and Early Life History of Razorback Sucker in the Green 

River, Utah and Colorado, 1992–1996, Colorado State University Larval Fish Laboratory, 

Fort Collins, Colo. 

Muth, R.T., et al., 2000, Flow and Temperature Recommendations for Endangered Fishes in 

the Green River Downstream of Flaming Gorge Dam, final report, Upper Colorado River 

Endangered Fish Recovery Program, Denver, Colo., Sept. 

NADP (National Atmospheric Deposition Program), 2011, home page. Available at 

http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu. Accessed Sept. 23, 2011. 

Natchees, M., 2007, Oil Shale Development Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, 

Unita Basin, Utah, letter from Natchees (The Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray 

Reservation, Fort Duchesne, Utah) to S. Thompson (Bureau of Land Management State Office, 

Lakewood, Colo.), April 11. 

National Parks Conservation Association, 2006, California Condor. Available at http://www. 

npca.org/wildlife_protection/wildlife_facts/condor.html. Accessed July 13, 2006. 

NatureServe, 2011, NatureServe Explorer: An Online Encyclopedia of Life, Version 7.1, 

Arlington, Va. Available at http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. Accessed Sept. 26, 2011. 

NCDC (National Climatic Data Center), 2011a, Integrated Surface Data (ISD), DS3505 format, 

database, Asheville, N.C. Available at ftp://ftp3.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/noaa. Accessed 

Aug. 23, 2011. 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-316 

NCDC, 2011b, Storm Events, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 

Satellite and Information Service. Available at http://www4.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-win/wwcgi. 

dll?wwEvent~Storms. Accessed Aug. 25, 2011. 

NCES (National Center for Education Statistics), 2011, Search for Public School Districts, 

U.S. Department of Education. Available at http://www.nces.ed.gov/ccd/districtsearch. 

Neff, J.C., et al., 2008, “Increasing Eolian Dust Deposition in the Western United States Linked 

to Human Activity,” Nat. Geosci. 1:189–195. 

Nelson, J.S., et al., 2004, Common and Scientific Names of Fishes from the United States, 

Canada, and Mexico, 6th ed., American Fisheries Society, Special Publication 29, Bethesda, Md. 

Nelson, M., and R.P. Guralnick, 2007, A Field Guide to the Freshwater Mollusks of Colorado. 

Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver, Colo. 

Nesler, T.P., et al., 1988, “Evidence for Baseline Flow Spikes as Spawning Cues for Colorado 

Squawfish in the Yampa River, Colorado,” American Fisheries Society Symposium 5:68–79. 

Nicholoff, S.H., 2003, Wyoming Bird Conservation Plan, Version 2.0, Wyoming Partners in 

Flight, Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Lander, Wyo. Available at http://www.blm.gov/ 

wildlife/plan/WY/Wyoming%20Bird%20Conservation%20Plan.htm. Accessed Sept. 26, 2006. 

NNHP (Nevada Natural Heritage Program), 2001, Spiranthes diluvialis Sheviak, Ute Ladies’-

Tresses, Rare Plant Fact Sheet. 

NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), 2010, State of the Climate in 2009, 

D.S. Arndt et al. (editors), Special Supplement to the Bulletin of the American Meteorological 

Society, Vol. 91, No. 7, July. Available at http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bamssotc/climate-assessment-2009-lo-rez.pdf. Accessed Nov. 16, 2011. 

NRC (National Research Council), 1992, Rethinking the Ozone Problem in Urban and Regional 

Air Pollution, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 

NWCC (National Wind Coordinating Committee), 2002, Permitting of Wind Energy 

Facilities: A Handbook, prepared by the NWCC Siting Subcommittee, Aug. Available at 

http://www.nationalwind.org/assets/publications/permitting2002.pdf. Accessed Sept. 26, 2011. 

Orabona, A., et al., 2009, Atlas of Birds, Mammals, Amphibians, and Reptiles in Wyoming, 

Wyoming Game and Fish Department, Nongame Program, Lander, Wyo. 

O’Rourke, D., et al., 2012, Class I Cultural Resource Overview for Oil Shale and Tar Sands 

Areas in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming, prepared by Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, 

Ill., for U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Sept. 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-317 

Osmundson, D.B., and K.P. Burnham, 1996, Status and Trends of Colorado Squawfish in the 

Upper Colorado River, final report, prepared by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Grand Junction, 

Colo., for Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program, Denver, Colo. 

Osmundson, D.B., and L.R. Kaeding, 1989, Studies of Colorado Squawfish and Razorback 

Sucker Use of the “15-Mile Reach” of the Upper Colorado River as Part of Conservation 

Measures for the Green Mountain and Ruedi Reservoir Water Sales, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Colorado River Fishery Project, Grand Junction, Colo. 

Ott, R., 2010, Perspectives on Ute Ethnohistory in West Central Colorado, prepared by 

Dominguez Archaeological Research Group for the Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray 

Reservation, the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, the Southern Ute Tribe, and Bureau of Land 

Management Colorado State Office, Dec. 6. 

Painter, T.H., et al., 2007, “Impact of Disturbed Desert Soils on Duration of Mountain Snow 

Cover,” Geophys. Res. Lett. 34, L12502. 

Painter, T.H., et al., 2010, “Response of Colorado River Runoff to Dust Radiative Forcing in 

Snow,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107(40):17,125–17,130. 

Parrish, J.R., et al., 2002, Utah Partners in Flight, Avian Conservation Strategy, Version 2.0, 

Utah Partners in Flight Program, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City, Utah. 

Available at http://www.wildlife.utah.gov/publications/pdf/utah_partners_in_flight.pdf. 

Accessed Sept. 26, 2006. 

Peterson, D.A., 1988, Streamflow Characteristics of the Green, Bear, and Snake River Basins, 

Wyoming, through 1984, Water-Resources Investigations Report 87-4022, U.S. Geological 

Survey. 

Platania, S.P., et al., 1991, “Status of Colorado Squawfish and Razorback Sucker in the San Juan 

River, Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah,” Southwestern Naturalist 36:147–150. 

Pope, C., and J. Jones, 1990, “Value of Wilderness Designation in Utah,” Journal of 

Environmental Management, 30:157174. 

Price, D., and L.L. Miller, 1975, Hydrologic Reconnaissance of the Southern Uinta Basin, Utah 

and Colorado, Technical Publication No. 49, Utah Department of Natural Resources. 

Price Municipal Corporation, Utah, 2005, Price Municipal Corporation, Basic Financial 

Statements for the Year Ended June 30, 2005, Price, Utah. 

Propst, D.L., et al., 2008, “Natural Flow Regimes, Nonnative Fishes, and Native Fish Persistence 

in Arid-Land River Systems,” Ecological Applications 18:1236–1252. 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-318 

Radbruch-Hall, D.H., et al., 1982, Landslide Overview Map of the Conterminous United States, 

Professional Paper 1183, U.S. Geological Survey. Available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/ pp/p1183/ 

pp1183.html. Accessed July 5, 2006. 

Raftovich, R.V., et al., 2011, Migratory Bird Hunting Activity and Harvesting during the 

2009 and 2010 Hunting Seasons, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Laurel, Md. Available at 

http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/NewReportsPublications/HIP/HuntingStatistics/migratory%

20bird%20hunting%20activity%20and%20harvest%20during%20the%202009%20and%202010

%20hunting%20seasons.pdf. Accessed Sept. 23, 2011. 

Rahel, F.J., and J.D. Olden, 2008, “Assessing the Effects of Climate Change on Aquatic Invasive 

Species,” Conservation Biology 22:521–533. 

Rasmussen, W., 2008, personal communication from Rasmussen (Exxon Mobil, Houston, Texas) 

to T. Allison (Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Ill.), March. 

Ray, A., et al., 2008, Climate Change in Colorado: A Synthesis to Support Water Resources 

Management and Adaptation, Colorado Water Conservation Board, Colo. Available at 

http://cwcb.state.co.us/public-information/publications/Documents/ReportsStudies. Accessed 

Oct. 7, 2011. 

Recreation.gov, 2006, home page. Available at http://www.recreation.gov. Accessed 

Oct. 7, 2011. 

Reed, A.D., and M.D. Metcalf, 1999, Colorado Prehistory: A Context for the Northern Colorado 

River Basin, Colorado Council of Professional Archaeologists, Denver, Colo. 

Repplier, F.N., et al., 1981, Atlas of Ground Water Quality in Colorado, Colorado Geological 

Survey, Denver, Colo. 

Rinne, J.N., et al., 1986, “The Role of Hatcheries in the Management and Recovery of 

Threatened and Endangered Fishes,” pp. 271285 in Fish Culture in Fisheries Management, 

R.H. Stroud (editor), American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Md.

Rio Blanco County, Colorado, 2002, Article X: “Standards,” Section 260: “Standard for Noise 

and Vibration,” in Rio Blanco County Land Use Resolution. Available at http://www.co.rioblanco.co.us/development/pdf/Section%20260%20Noise.pdf. Accessed Sept. 26, 2011. 

Rio Blanco County, Colorado, 2005, Summary of Levies and Values, Rio Blanco County, 

Colorado, 2005, Office of County Treasurer, Meeker, Colo. 

Robinson, A.T., et al., 1998, “Dispersal of Larval Fishes in a Regulated River Tributary,” 

Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 127:772–786. 

Robson, S.G., and G.J. Saulnier, 1981, Hydrogeochemistry and Simulated Solute Transport, 

Piceance Basin, Northwestern Colorado, U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1196.
Final OSTS PEIS 3-319 

Roehler, H.W., 1992, Description and Correlation of Eocene Rocks in Stratigraphic Reference 

Sections for the Green River and Washakie Basins, Southwest Wyoming, Professional Paper 506, 

U.S. Geological Survey. 

Roosevelt City Corporation, Utah, 2005, Roosevelt City Corporation, Duchesne County, Utah, 

Annual Financial Report for the Year Ended June 30, 2005. 

Ruediger, B., et al., 2000, Canada Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy, U.S. Forest 

Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land 

Management, and National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Missoula, Mont. 

SAMHSA (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration), 2006, 2005 State 

Estimates of Substance Use and Mental Health, 2004 and 2005, Office of Applied Studies, 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Available at http://oas.samhsa.gov/2k5State/ 

AppB.htm#TabB.16. Accessed Aug. 2007. 

San Juan County, Utah, 2004, San Juan County, Independent Auditor’s Report, Basic Financial 

Statements, Year Ended December 31, 2004, San Juan County Clerk Auditor, Monticello, Utah. 

Saunders, S., et al., 2008, Hotter and Drier: The West’s Changed Climate, prepared for the 

Rocky Mountain Climate Organization and the Natural Resources Defense Council, March. 

Available at http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/west/west.pdf. Accessed Oct. 10, 2011. 

Sawyer, H., et al., 2005, “Mule Deer and Pronghorn Migration in Western Wyoming,” Wildlife 

Society Bulletin 33(4):12661273. 

Schulze, W.D., and D.S. Brookshire, 1983, “The Economic Benefits of Preserving Visibility in 

the National Park Lands of the Southwest,” Natural Resources Journal 23:149173. 

Secretary of the Interior, 2009, “Addressing the Impacts of Climate Change on America’s Water, 

Land, and Other Natural and Cultural Resources,” Secretarial Order 3289, Sept. 14. Available at 

http://www.nps.gov/sustainability/documents/Quick-Links/SecOrder3289[1].pdf. 

Seinfeld, J.H., and S.N. Pandis, 1998, Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics: From Air Pollution 

to Climate Change, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, N.Y. 

Seyfrit, C.L., and N.C. Sadler-Hammer, 1988, “Social Impact of Rapid Energy Development on 

Rural Youth: A Statewide Comparison,” Society and Natural Resources 1:5767. 

Shimkin, D.B., 1947, “Wind River Shoshone Ethnogeography,” University of California 

Anthropological Records 5(4), Berkeley, Calif. 

Shimkin, D.B., 1986a, “Introduction of the Horse,” pp. 517524 in Great Basin, 

W.L. d’Azevedo (editor), Vol. 11 of Handbook of North American Indians, W.C. Sturtevant 

(general editor), Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-320 

Shimkin, D.B., 1986b, “Eastern Shoshone,” pp. 308335 in Great Basin, W.L. d’Azevedo 

(editor), Vol. 11 of Handbook of North American Indians, W.C. Sturtevant (general editor), 

Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 

Smith, M., et al., 2001, “Growth, Decline, Stability and Disruption: A Longitudinal Analysis of 

Social Well-Being in Four Western Communities,” Rural Sociology 66:425450. 

Sovell, J.R., and R.P. Guralnick, 2004, Montane Mollusk and Crustacean Survey of Western 

Colorado, 2003 Annual Report, by Colorado Natural Heritage Program and University of 

Colorado Museum for Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver, Colo. March. Available at 

http://www.cnhp.colostate.edu/documents/2004/Montane_Mollusk_and_Crustacean_Survey_ 

2004.pdf. Accessed May 16, 2008. 

Spahr, N.E., et al., 2000, Water Quality in the Upper Colorado River Basin, Colorado, 1996–98, 

Circular 1214, U.S. Geological Survey. 

Standard and Poor’s, 2006, School Matters. Available at http://www.schoolmatters.com. 

Accessed July 2006. 

State of Utah, 2006, Rule R317-6, Ground Water Quality Protection. Available at 

http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/code/r317/r317-006.htm. Accessed July 6, 2006. 

Stehn, T., 2008, Whooping Crane Recovery Activities November, 2007–September, 2008. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Available at http://www.whoopingcrane.com/Documents/ 

WCRA_07to08.pdf. Accessed Sept. 15, 2010. 

Strohman, J., 2000, “Surface Water Quality,” in Green River Basin Water Plan Technical 

Memoranda, States West Water Resources Corporation. Available at http://waterplan.state. 

wy.us/plan/green/techmemos/techmemos.html. Accessed May 25, 2006. 

Sweetwater County, Wyoming, 2005, Sweetwater County, Wyoming, Financial and Compliance 

Report, June 30, 2005, Sweetwater County Clerk, Green River, Wyo. 

SWWRC (States West Water Resources Corporation), 2001a, “Basin Water Use Profile—

Agriculture,” in Green River Basin Water Plan Technical Memoranda. Available at 

http://waterplan.state.wy.us/ plan/green/techmemos/techmemos.html. Accessed May 25, 2006. 

SWWRC, 2001b, Green River Basin, Water Planning Process, Feb. 

Taba, S.S., et al., 1965, “Notes on the Fishes of the Colorado River near Moab, Utah,” Utah 

Academy of Science, Arts, and Letters 42:280–285. 

Teuscher, D., and C. Luecke, 1996, “Competition between Kokanees and Utah Chub in Flaming 

Gorge Reservoir,” Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 125:505–511. 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-321 

Thompson, S., 2012, “Consultation with Clifford Duncan, Elder for Northern Ute Tribe,” 

personal communication from Thompson (Bureau of Land Management, Lakewood, Colo.) to 

K. Picel (Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Ill.), May 30. 

Tilley, D., et al., 2010, Plant Guide for Atwood’s phacelia (Phacelia argillacea), USDA-Natural 

Resources Conservation Service, Idaho Plant Materials Center, Aberdeen, Idaho. 

Tipps, B., 1988, The Tar Sands Project: An Inventory and Predictive Model for Central and 

Southern Utah, Cultural Resources Series No. 22, Bureau of Land Management, Utah State 

Office, Salt Lake City, Utah. 

Tobin, R.L., 1987, “Water Quality in the Piceance Basin,” pp. 81–85 in Oil Shale, Water 

Resources, and Valuable Minerals of the Piceance Basin, Colorado: The Challenge and Choices 

of Development, O.J. Taylor (editor), Professional Paper 1310, U.S. Geological Survey. 

Tobin, R.L., 1993, Sediment Transport and Water-Quality Characteristics and Loads, White 

River, Northwestern Colorado, Water Years 1975-88, U.S. Geological Survey, Water-Resources 

Investigations Report 92-4031. 

Tobin, R.L., et al., 1985, Water-Quality Characteristics of Streams in the Piceance Creek 

and Yellow Creek Drainage Basins, Northwestern Colorado, Water Years 1977–1981, 

U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 84-4261. 

Toennies, F., 1887, Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft, 1988 translation, Transaction Books, 

New Brunswick, N.J. 

Topper, R., et al., 2003, Ground Water Atlas of Colorado, Special Publication 53, Colorado 

Geological Survey, Denver, Colo. 

Town of Meeker, Colorado, 2005, Town of Meeker, Colorado, Financial Statements and 

Independent Auditors’ Report, December 31, 2005. 

Town of Parachute, Colorado, 2005, Town of Parachute, Colorado, Financial Statements and 

Supplemental Information with Independent Auditor’s Report, Year Ended December 31, 2005.

Town of Rangely, Colorado, 2004, Town of Rangely, Colorado, Financial Statements and 

Independent Auditors’ Report, December 31, 2004. 

Town of Silt, Colorado, 2005, Town of Silt, Colorado, Financial Statements, 

December 31, 2005. 

Tyus, H.M., 1987, “Distribution, Reproduction, and Habitat Use of the Razorback Sucker in the 

Green River, Utah, 1979–1986,” Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 116:111–116. 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-322 

Tyus, H.M., 1991, “Ecology and Management of Colorado Squawfish,” pp. 379–402 in Battle 

against Extinction: Native Fish Management in the American Southwest, W.L. Minckley and 

J.E. Deacon (editors), University of Arizona Press, Tucson, Ariz. 

Tyus, H.M., 1998, “Early Records of the Endangered Fish Gila Cypha, Miller, from the Yampa 

River of Colorado with Notes on Its Decline,” Copeia 1998:190–193. 

Tyus, H.M., and G.B. Haines, 1991, “Distribution, Habitat Use, and Growth of Age-0 Colorado 

Squawfish in the Green River Basin, Colorado and Utah,” Transactions of the American 

Fisheries Society 120:79–89. 

Tyus, H.M., and C.A. Karp, 1990, “Spawning and Movements of the Razorback Sucker, 

Xyrauchen texanus, in the Green River Basin of Colorado and Utah,” Southwestern Naturalist

35:427433. 

Tyus, H.M., and J.F. Saunders III, 1996, Nonnative Fishes in Natural Ecosystems and a Strategic 

Plan for Control of Nonnatives in the Upper Colorado River Basin, Final Report, Recovery 

Implementation Program for the Recovery of Endangered Fishes in the Upper Colorado River 

Basin, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, Colo. 

Tyus, H.M., and J.F. Saunders III, 2001, An Evaluation of the Role of Tributary Streams for 

Recovery of Endangered Fishes in the Upper Colorado River Basin, with Recommendations 

for Future Recovery Actions, Final Report, Project No. 101, prepared for the Upper Colorado 

Endangered Fish Recovery Program by the Center for Limnology, Cooperative Institute for 

Research in Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado at Boulder, March. 

Tyus, H.M., et al., 1982, “Fishes of the Upper Colorado River Basin: Distribution, Abundance 

and Status,” pp. 1270 in Fishes of the Upper Colorado River System: Present and Future, 

W.H. Miller et al. (editors), Western Division, American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Md.

UDEQ (Utah Department of Environmental Quality), 2006, Water Quality [Uinta Basin]. 

Available at http://www.waterquality.utah.gov/watersheds/uinta/water_quality.htm. Accessed 

May 8, 2006. 

UDEQ, 2010a, “2010 303(d) List,” Vol. II in Utah’s 2010 Integrated Report. Available 

at http://www.waterquality.utah.gov/WQAssess/documents/IR2010/Part3/ 

Final2010IR303(d)List.2.10.2012.pdf. Accessed April 25, 2012. 

UDEQ, 2010b, 2011 Air Monitoring Network Plan. Available at http://www.airmonitoring.utah. 

gov/network/2011AirMonitoringNetworkPlan.PDF. Accessed Oct. 12, 2011. 

UDEQ, 2012a, Source Protection Program, Division of Drinking Water. Available at 

http://www.drinkingwater.utah.gov/source_protection_intro.htm. Accessed June 12, 2012. 

UDEQ, 2012b, 2008 Statewide Emissions Inventory. Available at http://www.airquality.utah. 

gov/Planning/Emission-Inventory/Available_inventory.htm. Accessed July 11, 2012. 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-323 

UDNR (Utah Department of Natural Resources), 1999, Utah State Water Plan—Uinta Basin, 

Division of Water Resources. 

UDNR, 2000a, Utah State Water Plan—Southeast Colorado River Basin, Division of Water 

Resources. 

UDNR, 2000b, Utah State Water Plan—West Colorado River Basin, Division of Water 

Resources. 

UDNR, 2000c, Municipal and Industrial Water Supply and Uses in the Uintah Basin (Data 

Collected for Calendar Year 1995), prepared by Division of Waters, July 1998, revised Dec. 

2000. 

UDNR, 2001, Utah’s Water Resources, Planning for the Future, Division of Water Resources. 

UDNR, 2003, Utah’s M&I Water Conservation Plan, Investing in the Future, Division of Water 

Resources, July. 

UDNR, 2006a, Conservation and Management Plan for Three Fish Species in Utah: Addressing 

Needs for Roundtail Chub (Gila robusta), Bluehead Sucker (Catostomus discobolus), and 

Flannelmouth Sucker (Catostomus latipinnis), Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Utah 

Department of Natural Resources, Salt Lake City, Utah. 

UDNR, 2006b, Range-Wide Conservation Agreement and Strategy for Roundtail Chub (Gila 

robusta), Bluehead Sucker (Catostomus discobolus), and Flannelmouth Sucker (Catostomus 

latipinnis), Publication No. 06-18, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Utah Department of 

Natural Resources, Salt Lake City, Utah. 

UDWR (Utah Division of Wildlife Resources), 2002, Ute Ladies’-Tresses, Spiranthes diluvialis, 

fact sheet. 

UDWR, 2006, Utah Conservation Data Center, Salt Lake City, Utah. Available at http://dwrcdc. 

nr.utah.gov/ucdc. Accessed July 2006.

UDWR, 2008, Statewide Management Plan for Mule Deer, Salt Lake City, Utah. Available at 

http://www.wildlife.utah.gov/hunting/biggame/pdf/mule_deer_plan.pdf. Accessed Sept. 26, 

2011. 

UDWR, 2009, Statewide Management Plan for Moose, Salt Lake City, Utah. Available at 

http://www/wildlife.utah.gov/hunting/biggame/pdf/moose_plan.pdf. Accessed Sept. 26, 2011. 

UDWR, 2010, Statewide Management Plan for Elk, Salt Lake City, Utah. Available at 

http:// wildlife.utah.gov/hunting/biggame/pdf/elk_plan.pdf. Accessed Sept. 26, 2011. 

UDWR, 2011a, Utah Conservation Data Center, Salt Lake City, Utah. Available at 

http://dwrcdc.nr.utah.gov/ucdc/default.pdf. Accessed Sept. 14, 2011. 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-324 

UDWR, 2011b, Utah Black Bear Management Plan, V. 2.0, 2011-2023. Available at 

http://wildlife.utah.gov/bear/pdf/2011_bear_plan.pdf. Accessed Sept. 28, 2011. 

UDWR, 2012, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources Index of Available GIS Data. Available at 

http://dwrcdc.nr.utah.gov/ucdc/DownloadGIS/disclaim.htm. Accessed June 11, 2012. 

Uintah County, Utah, 2004, Uintah County Financial Statements for the Year Ended 

December 31, 2004. 

Uinta County, Wyoming, 2005, Uinta County, Wyoming, Comprehensive Annual Financial 

Report June 30, 2005, Uinta County Auditor, Evanston, Wyo. 

University of Wyoming, 2006, Wyoming Natural Diversity Database. Available at 

http://uwadmnweb.uwyo.edu/wyndd. Accessed July 3, 2006. 

U.S. Census Bureau, 2007, American Fact Finder. Available at http://factfinder.census. 

gov. Accessed July 2006. 

U.S. Census Bureau, 2011a, County Business Patterns, 2004, hypertext tables. Available at 

http://www.census.gov/ftp/pub/epcd/cbp/view/cbpview.html. 

U.S. Census Bureau, 2011b, Federal, State, and Local Governments, Census of Governments. 

Available at http://www.census. gov/gov/www/index.html. 

U.S. Census Bureau, 2011c, American FactFinder. Available at http://factfinder.census.gov. 

U.S. Census Bureau, 2011d, State Interim Population Projections by Age and Sex: 20042030. 

Available at http://www.census.gov/population/www/projections/projections agesex.html. 

U.S. Census Bureau, 2011e, GCT-T1, Population Estimates. Available at 

http://factfinder.census.gov. 

U.S. Census Bureau, 2011f, QT-P32. Income Distribution in 1999 of Households and 

Families: 2000, Census 2000 Summary File (SF 3) – Sample Data. Available at 

http://factfinder.census.gov. 

U.S. Census Bureau, 2011g, S1901, Income in the Past 12 Months, 2006–2008 American 

Community Survey 3-Year Estimates. Available at http://factfinder.census.gov. 

U.S. Census Bureau, 2011h, T1, Population Estimates. Available at http://factfinder.census.gov. 

USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture), 2011, 2007 Census of Agriculture: State and County 

Data, Volume 1, Geographic Area Series, National Agricultural Statistics Service, Washington, 

D.C. Available at http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Full_Report/Volume_1,_ 

Chapter_2_County_Level.asp. 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-325 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 2011, State Personal Income, Bureau of Economic Analysis. 

Available at http://www.bea.gov/regional/spi/default.cfm?selTable=SA05N&selSeries=NAICS. 

U.S. Department of Labor, 2011, Local Area Unemployment Statistics: States and Selected 

Areas: Employment Status of the Civilian Noninstitutional Population, 1976 to 2010, Annual 

Averages, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Available at http://www.bls.gov/lau/staadata.txt. 

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), 1967, “Endangered Species List,” Federal 

Register 32:4001. 

USFWS, 1970, “Part 17—Conservation of Endangered Species and Other Fish or 

Wildlife (First List of Endangered Foreign Fish and Wildlife as Appendix A),” Federal 

Register 35:8491–8498. 

USFWS, 1978, “Determination of Critical Habitat for the Whooping Crane,” Federal 

Register 43:20938–20942. 

USFWS, 1982a, Clay Phacelia Recovery Plan Action Status, Utah Ecological Services Field 

Office. 

USFWS, 1982b, Kendall Warm Springs Dace Recovery Plan, Region 6, Denver, Colo. 

USFWS, 1990a, Humpback Chub Recovery Plan, Region 6, Denver, Colo.

USFWS, 1990b, Uinta Basin Hookless Cactus (Sclerocactus glaucus) Recovery Plan, Region 6, 

Denver, Colo. 

USFWS, 1991a, Autumn Buttercup, Ranunculus acriformis var. aestevalis Recovery Plan, 

Region 6, Denver, Colo. 

USFWS, 1991b, Utah Prairie Dog Recovery Plan, Region 6, Denver, Colo. 

USFWS, 1992, “Final Rule to List the Plant Spiranthes diluvialis (Ute Ladies’-Tresses) as a 

Threatened Species,” Federal Register 57:20482054. 

USFWS, 1993a, Barneby Ridge-Cress Recovery Plan, Region 6, Denver, Colo. 

USFWS, 1993b, Dudley Bluffs Bladderpod (Lesquerella congesta) and Dudley Bluffs Twinpod 

(Physaria obcordata) Recovery Plan, Grand Junction, Colo. 

USFWS, 1993c, Last Chance Townsendia Recovery Plan, Region 6, Denver, Colo. 

USFWS, 1994a, Utah Reed Mustards Recovery Plan, Region 6, Denver, Colo. 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-326 

USFWS, 1994b, “Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Critical 

Habitat for the Colorado River Endangered Fishes: Razorback Sucker, Colorado Squawfish, 

Humpback Chub, and Bonytail Chub,” Federal Register 59:1337413400. 

USFWS, 1995a, Recovery Plan for the Mexican Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis lucida), 

Southwestern Region, Albuquerque, N.M. 

USFWS, 1995b, Utah Pediocactus: San Rafael Cactus (Pediocactus despainii) and Winkler 

Cactus (Pediocactus winkleri) Recovery Plan, Region 6, Denver, Colo. 

USFWS, 1997a, “Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Determination of 

Critical Habitat for the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher,” Federal Register 62:3912939147. 

USFWS, 1997b, “Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding for a 

Petition to List the Contiguous United States Population of the Canada Lynx,” Federal 

Register 62:2865328657. 

USFWS, 1997c, “Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Final Rule to Designate 

the Whooping Cranes of the Rocky Mountains as Experimental, Nonessential and to 

Remove Whooping Crane Critical Habitat Designations from Four Locations,” Federal 

Register 62:3893230939. 

USFWS, 1998a, “Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Establishment of a 

Nonessential Experimental Population of Black-Footed Ferrets in Northwestern Colorado and 

Northeastern Utah,” Federal Register 63:5282352841. 

USFWS, 1998b, “Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposal to List the 

Contiguous United States Distinct Population Segment of the Canada Lynx, Proposed Rule,” 

Federal Register 63:3699337013. 

USFWS, 1999, “Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Rule to Remove 

the Bald Eagle in the Lower 48 States from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife,” 

Federal Register 64:3645336464. 

USFWS, 2000a, “Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Notice of 90-Day Finding for 

a Petition to List the Yellow-Billed Cuckoo as Endangered and Commencement of a Status 

Review,” Federal Register 65:81048107. 

USFWS, 2000b, “Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Threatened 

Status for the Contiguous U.S. Distinct Population Segment of the Canada Lynx and Related 

Rule,” Federal Register 65:1605216086. 

USFWS, 2001, “Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Twelve Month Finding for a 

Petition to List the Yellow-Billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus) in the Western Continental 

United States, Federal Register 66(143):3861138626. 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-327 

USFWS, 2002a, Bonytail (Gila elegans) Recovery Goals: Amendment and Supplement to the 

Bonytail Chub Recovery Plan, Region 6, Denver, Colo. 

USFWS, 2002b, Humpback Chub (Gila cypha) Recovery Goals: Amendment and Supplement to 

the Humpback Chub Recovery Plan, Region 6, Denver, Colo. 

USFWS, 2002c, 2001 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife Associated Recreation: 

State Overview, Preliminary Findings, June. Available at http://library.fws.gov/Pubs/ 

State_overview01.pdf. Accessed March 2007. 

USFWS, 2002d, Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Recovery Plan, Albuquerque, N.M. 

USFWS, 2006a, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Threatened and Endangered Species System, Life 

Histories. Available at http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/life_histories/B002.html. Accessed July 3, 2006. 

USFWS, 2006b, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Region Hopper Mountain National 

Wildlife Refuge Complex, California Condor. Available at http://www.fws.gov/hopper 

mountain/cacondor. Accessed July 13, 2006. 

USFWS, 2006c, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Environmental Conservation Online System, 

Ridge-Cress, Barneby. Available at http://ecos.fws.gov/species_profile/servlet/gov.doi.species_ 

profile.servlets.SpeciesProfile?spcode=Q1XV. Accessed July 6, 2006. 

USFWS, 2006d, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Mountain-Prairie Region, Endangered Species 

Program. Available at http://mountain-prairie.fws.gov/species/plants/grahamsbeardtongue/index. 

htm. Accessed July 5, 2006. 

USFWS, 2006e, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Designated Critical Habitat for the Mexican 

Spotted Owl. Available at http://www.fws.gov/ifw2es/mso/critical_habitat/critical_habitat.htm. 

Accessed July 12, 2006. 

USFWS, 2006f, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Mexican Spotted Owl Recovery Program, 

General Biology and Ecological Relationships. Available at http://www.fws.gov/ifw2es/mso/ 

Biology.cfm. Accessed July 12, 2006. 

USFWS, 2006g, Threatened and Endangered Species Database, Beardtongue, White River. 

Available at http://ecos.fws.gov/species_profile/servlet/gov.doi.species_profile.servlets. 

SpeciesProfile?spcode=Q2QI. Accessed July 11, 2006.

USFWS, 2006h, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Species Assessment and Listing Priority 

Assignment Form for Penstemon debilis. Available at http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/candforms_ 

pdf/r6/Q36W_pol.pdf. Accessed Sept. 14, 2007. 

USFWS, 2006i, “Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Threatened 

Status for Penstemon grahamii (Graham’s beardtongue) with Critical Habitat,” Federal 

Register 71:31583196. 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-328 

USFWS, 2007a, Kendall Warm Springs Dace 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation, 

Mountain-Prairie Regional Office, Cheyenne, Wyo. 

USFWS, 2007b, “Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: 90-day Finding on a Petition 

to Reclassify the Utah Prairie Dog from Threatened to Endangered and Initiation of a 5-Year 

Review,” Federal Register 72(34):78437852. 

USFWS, 2007c, “Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removing the Bald Eagle in 

the Lower 48 States from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, Final Rule,” Federal 

Register 72(130):3734537372. 

USFWS, 2008, “Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a 

Petition to List the Gunnison’s Prairie Dog as Threatened or Endangered,” Federal Register

73(24):6660–6684. 

USFWS, 2010a, Recovery Outline for the Colorado Hookless Cactus (Sclerocactus glaucus), 

Colorado Ecological Services Field Office. Available at http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/ 

CO%20hookless%20cactus_recovery%20outline_Apr%202010.pdf. Accessed June 12, 2012. 

USFWS, 2010b, Recovery Outline for the Sclerocactus brevispinus (Periette Cactus), Region 6, 

Denver, Colo. 

USFWS, 2010c, Recovery Outline for the Sclerocactus wetlandicus (Uinta Basin Hookless 

Cactus), Colorado Ecological Services Field Office. Available at http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/ 

recovery_plan/Sclerocactus%20wetlandicus%20recovery%20outline_final_Apr%202010.pdf. 

Accessed June 12, 2012. 

USFWS, 2010d, Greater Sage-Grouse, Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office. Available at 

http://www.fws.gov/nevada/nv_species/sage_grouse.html. Accessed Sept. 28, 2011. 

USFWS, 2011, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Environmental Conservation Online System, 

Pariette cactus. Available at http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile. 

action?spcode=Q3KI. Accessed Sept. 27, 2011. 

USGCRP (U.S. Global Change Research Program), 2009, Global Climate Change Impacts 

in the United States, T.R. Karl et al. (editors), Cambridge University Press. Available at 

http://downloads.globalchange.gov/usimpacts/pdfs/climate-impacts-report.pdf. Accessed 

July 5, 2011. 

USGS (U.S. Geological Survey), 1968, Mineral and Water Resources of Colorado, report 

of the USGS in collaboration with the Colorado Mining Industrial Development Board, 

Washington, D.C., Oct. 

USGS, 1980a, Raven RidgeRim Rock and Vicinity, Utah Tar Sand Leasing Minutes No. 8, 

minutes of the Mineral Land Evaluation Committee, Nov. 10. 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-329 

USGS, 1980b, Argyle CanyonWillow Creek, Utah Tar Sand Leasing Minutes No. 9, minutes of 

the Mineral Land Evaluation Committee, Nov. 10. 

USGS, 1980c, Hill Creek, Utah Tar Sand Leasing Minutes No. 6, minutes of the Mineral Land 

Evaluation Committee, Nov. 10. 

USGS, 1980d, P.R. Spring, Utah Tar Sand Leasing Minutes, minutes of the Mineral Land 

Evaluation Committee, Sept. 23. 

USGS, 1980e, San Rafael Swell, Utah Tar Sand Leasing Minutes No. 7, minutes of the Mineral 

Land Evaluation Committee, Nov. 10. 

USGS, 2006a, USGS 09302000 Duchesne River near Randlett, Utah. Available at 

http://waterdata.usgs.gov/usa/nwis/uv?site_no=09302000. Accessed May 8, 2006. 

USGS, 2006b, Water Data for USGS 09328500 San Rafael River near Green River, Utah. 

Available at http://waterdata.usgs.gov/usa/nwis/uv?site_no=09328500. Accessed May 8, 2006. 

USGS, 2006c, Water Data for USGS 09333500 Dirty Devil River near Hanksville, Utah. 

Available at http://waterdata.usgs.gov/usa/nwis/uv?site_no=09333500. Accessed May 8, 2006. 

USGS, 2011, Water Use in Utah, 2000, Utah Water Science Center. Available at http://ut. 

water.usgs.gov/infodata/wateruse.html. Accessed Dec. 14, 2011. 

USGS, 2012, Water Data for USGS 09304600 White River below Meeker, CO. Available at 

http://waterdata.usgs.gov/usa/nwis/uv?site_no= 09304600. Accessed June 6, 2012. 

U.S. President, 1994, “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income Populations,” Executive Order 12898, Federal Register 59:7629. 

Utah Birds, 2007a, Bird List for Duchesne County, Utah. Available at http://www.utahbirds.org/ 

counties/xChecklists/DuchesneCoCheclist.pdf. Accessed Sept. 26, 2011. 

Utah Birds, 2007b, Bird List for San Juan County, Utah. Available at http://www.utahbirds.org/ 

counties/xChecklists/SanJuanCoCheclist.pdf. Accessed Sept. 26, 2011. 

Utah Birds, 2007c, Bird List for Uintah County, Utah. Available at http://www.utahbirds.org/ 

counties/xChecklists/UintahCoCheclist.pdf. Accessed Sept. 26, 2011. 

Utah Birds, 2007d, Bird List for Utah County, Utah. Available at http://www.utahbirds.org/ 

counties/xChecklists/UtahCoCheclist.pdf. Accessed Sept. 26, 2011. 

Utah Birds, 2007e, Bird List for Wasatch County, Utah. Available at http://www.utahbirds.org/ 

counties/xChecklists/WasatchCoCheclist.pdf. Accessed Sept. 26, 2011. 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-330 

Utah Birds, 2010, Bird List for Garfield County, Utah. Available at http://www.utahbirds.org/ 

counties/xChecklists/GarfieldCoCheclist.pdf. Accessed Sept. 26, 2011. 

Utah Birds, 2011a, Bird List for Carbon County, Utah. Available at http://www.utahbirds.org/ 

counties/xChecklists/CarbonCoCheclist.pdf. Accessed Sept. 26, 2011. 

Utah Birds, 2011b, Bird List for Emery County, Utah. Available at http://www.utahbirds.org/ 

counties/xChecklists/EmeryCoCheclist.pdf. Accessed Sept. 26, 2011. 

Utah Birds, 2011c, Bird List for Grand County, Utah. Available at http://www.utahbirds.org/ 

counties/xChecklists/GrandCoCheclist.pdf. Accessed Sept. 26, 2011. 

Utah Birds, 2011d, Bird List for Wayne County, Utah. Available at http://www.utahbirds.org/ 

counties/xChecklists/WayneCoCheclist.pdf. Accessed Sept. 26, 2011. 

Utah Birds, 2011e, Taxonomic List of Utah Birds. Available at http://www.utahbirds.org/ 

birdsofutah/index.html. Accessed Sept. 26, 2011. 

Utah Department of Public Safety, 2006, Crime in Utah: Preliminary Report, 2005. Available at 

http://bci.utah.gov/Stats/2005p.pdf. Accessed July 2006. 

Utah Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget, 2006, Population Projections by County and 

District. Available at http://www.governor.utah.gov/DEA/Projections/06ProjCountyand 

District.pdf. Accessed July 2006. 

Utah State Legislature, 2000, State Park Funding Options, June. Available at http://www.le. 

state.ut.us/lfa/reports/ParksFunding.pdf. 

Utah State Parks and Recreation, 2006, State of Utah Natural Resources, home page. Available 

at http://www.stateparks.utah.gov/index.php. Accessed Oct. 7, 2011. 

Valdez, R.A., 1990, The Endangered Fish of Cataract Canyon, final report, prepared by 

BIO/WEST, Inc., for U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Salt Lake City, Utah. 

Valdez, R.A., and W.J. Masslich, 1989, Winter Habitat Study of Endangered FishGreen 

River: Wintertime Movement and Habitat of Adult Colorado Squawfish and Razorback Suckers, 

BIO-WEST, Inc., Logan, Utah. 

Valdez, R.A., et al., 1982, “Upper Colorado River Investigation (Rifle, Colorado, to Lake 

Powell, Utah),” in Colorado River Fishery Project Final Report, Field Investigations Report 2, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Salt Lake City, Utah.

Valdez, R.A., et al., 1992, Characterization of the Life History and Ecology of the Humpback 

Chub in the Grand Canyon, Annual Report TR 250-05, BIO-WEST, Inc., Logan, Utah. 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-331 

Vanden Berg, M.D., 2005, Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario (RFD) for Oil and 

Gas, RFD for the Monticello Planning Area, prepared for the Bureau of Land Management, 

Monticello Field Office, July. 

Vanicek, C.D., and R.H. Kramer, 1969, “Life History of the Colorado Squawfish, Ptychocheilus 

lucius, and the Colorado chub, Gila robusta, in the Green River in Dinosaur National Monument 

1964–1966,” Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 98:193–208. 

Vernal City Corporation, Utah, 2005, Vernal City Corporation Financial Statements for the Year 

Ended June 30, 2005. 

Walsh, R.G., et al., 1984, “Valuing Option, Existence and Bequest Demand for Wilderness Land 

Economics,” Land Economics 60:1429. 

Ward, J., and T. Naumann, 1998, Ute Ladies’-Tresses Orchid (Spiranthes diluvialis Sheviak) 

Inventory, Dinosaur National Monument and Browns Park National Wildlife Refuge, Dinosaur 

National Monument, National Park Service. 

Wayne County, Utah, 2004, Wayne County Financial Statements, December 31, 2004. 

WDEQ (Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality), 2005, “Water Quality Rules and 

Regulations,” in Quality Standards for Wyoming Groundwaters, adopted March 16. Available at 

http://deq.state.wy.us/wqd/WQDrules/Chapter_08.pdf. Accessed June 6, 2006. 

WDEQ, 2012a, Wyoming Water Quality Assessment and Impaired Waters List (2012 Integrated 

305(b) and 303(d) Report) – Draft, Document 11-1058. Available at http://deq.state.wy.us/ 

wqd/watershed/Downloads/305b/2012/WY2012IR_Draft_Doc11-1058.pdf. Accessed 

April 25, 2012. 

WDEQ, 2012b, Source Water Assessment and Protection. Available at http://deq.state.wy.us/ 

wqd/www/SWP%20WHP/SWAP%20FAQs.asp. Accessed June 12, 2012. 

WDEQ, 2012c, “Ambient Standards,” Chapter 2 in Wyoming Department of Environmental 

Quality, Air Quality Division, Standards and Regulations. Available at http://deq.state.wy.us/ 

aqd/stnd/Chapter2_10-21-09FINAL_CLEAN.pdf. Accessed July 20, 2012. 

Weber, W., 1987, Colorado Flora: Western Slope, Colorado Associated University Press, 

Boulder, Colo. 

Weeks, J.B., et al., 1974, Simulated Effects of Oil-Shale Development on the Hydrology of 

Piceance Basin, Colorado, U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 908. 

Weisz, R., 1979, “Stress and Mental Health in a Boom Town,” pp. 3147 in BoomTowns and 

Human Services, J. Davenport and J. Davenport (editors), University of Wyoming Press, 

Laramie, Wyo. 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-332 

Welsh, S., and K. Thorne, 1979, Illustrated Manual of Proposed Endangered and Threatened 

Plants of Utah, prepared for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management, and 

U.S. Forest Service. 

WGFD (Wyoming Game and Fish Department), 2006, Wyoming Game and Fish Department, 

Green River Region, Angler Newsletter, Green River, Wyo., Spring. Available at 

http://gf.state.wy.us/downloads/pdf/Fish/Newsletters/GreenRiver/2006GRNewsletter.pdf. 

WGFD, 2009, The Official State List of the Common and Scientific Names of the Birds, 

Mammals, Amphibians, and Reptiles in Wyoming. Available at http://gf.state.wy.us/wildlife/ 

nongame/Species:ist/2009%20/204-1%20WY%20Species%20List.pdf. Accessed Sept. 26, 2011. 

WGFD, 2010a, Wyoming’s State Wildlife Action Plan. Available at http://gf.state.wy.us/ 

downloads/pdf/swap/2010_SWAP_Complete.pdf. Accessed Aug. 16, 2011. 

WGFD, 2010b, Wyoming Game and Fish Species Accounts, Cheyenne, Wyo. Available at 

http://gf.state.wy.us/downloads/pdf/SWAP/Fish/KendallWarmSpringsDace.pdf. Accessed 

Sept. 28, 2011. 

WGFD, 2010c, Sagebrush/Sage Grouse Management, Sage Grouse Core Area Maps and 

Shapefiles. Available at http://wgfd.wyo.gov/web2011/wildlife-1000382.aspx. Accessed 

June 11, 2012. 

WGFD, 2012, Green River Region. Available at http://wgfd.wyo.gov/web2011/wildlife1000535.aspx. Accessed May 31, 2012. 

Whitehead, P.G., et al., 2009, “A Review of the Potential Impacts of Climate Change on Surface 

Water Quality,” Hydrological Sciences Journal 54:101–123. 

Whooping Crane Conservation Association, 2006, Current Whooping Crane Flock Status 

(updated on May 5, 2006). Available at http://www.whoopingcrane.com/FLOCKSTATUS. 

HTM. Accessed July 13, 2006. 

Wilkinson, K.P., 1983, “Divorce and Recent Net Migration into the Old West,” Journal of 

Marriage and the Family 45:437445. 

Wilkinson, K.P., and M. Camasso, 1984, “Juvenile Delinquency and Energy Development in a 

Traditional Setting,” unpublished manuscript, Department of Rural Sociology, Pennsylvania 

State University, State College, Pa. 

Wilkinson, K.P., et al., 1982, “Local Social Disruption and Western Energy Development: 

A Critical Review,” Pacific Sociological Review 25:275296. 

Wilkinson, K.P., et al., 1984, “Violent Crime in the Western Energy-Development Region,” 

Sociological Perspectives 27:241256. 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-333 

Willey, D.W., and C. Van Riper, 2007, “Home Range Characteristics of Mexican Spotted Owls 

in the Canyonlands of Utah,” Journal of Raptor Research 41:10–15. 

Williams, M.H., 2002, Utah’s Scenic San Rafael Introduction. Available at http://www. 

arapeenatvjam.org/san_rafael_swell.htm. Accessed June 1, 2006. 

Wilson, D.M., et al., 1995, “Declining Populations of the Fingernail Clam Musculium 

transversum in the Upper Mississippi River,” Hydrobiologia 304:209–220. 

Woodling, J., 1985, Colorado’s Little Fish: A Guide to the Minnows and Other Lesser Known 

Fishes in the State of Colorado, Colorado Division of Wildlife, Department of Natural 

Resources, Denver, Colo. 

Woods, A.J., et al., 2001, Ecoregions of Utah, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Va. 

WRCC (Western Regional Climate Center), 2011, Western U.S. Climate Historical Summaries. 

Available at http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/Climsum.html. Accessed Aug. 24, 2011. 

Wu, S.-K., and N. Brandauer, 1978, “The Freshwater Mussels (Family Unionidae),” Natural 

History Inventory of Colorado 2:41–60, University of Colorado Museum, Boulder, Colo. 

Wyoming Department of Administration and Information, 2006, Population for Wyoming, 

Counties, Cities, and Towns: 2000 to 2020. Available at http://eadiv.state.wy.us/pop/ 

wyc&sc20.htm. Accessed March 2007. 

Wyoming Division of Criminal Investigation, 2006, 2005 Annual Report: Crime in Wyoming. 

Available at http://attorneygeneral.state.wy.us/dci/pdf/2005%20Annual%20Published.pdf. 

Accessed July 2006. 

Wyoming Division of State Parks and Historic Sites, 2006, home page. Available at 

http://wyoparks.state.wy.us. 

Wyoming Governor’s Office, 2011, “Greater Sage-Grouse Core Area Protection,” State of 

Wyoming, Executive Department, Executive Order 2011-5, June 2. 

 
Final OSTS PEIS 3-334 

This page intentionally left blank.