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 
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 3 CONTENTS 

NOTATION ............................................................................................................................. xx

ENGLISH/METRIC AND METRIC/ENGLISH EQUIVALENTS ....................................... xxvii

6 IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR OIL SHALE AND TAR SANDS 

 ALTERNATIVES .......................................................................................................... 6-1

 6.1 Oil Shale Alternatives ............................................................................................ 6-1

 6.1.1 Impacts of Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative, No Change to 

 2008 Decision ............................................................................................ 6-2

 6.1.1.1 Land Use ..................................................................................... 6-2

 6.1.1.2 Soil and Geologic Resources ...................................................... 6-6

 6.1.1.3 Paleontological Resources .......................................................... 6-7

 6.1.1.4 Water Resources ......................................................................... 6-9

 6.1.1.5 Air Quality .................................................................................. 6-11

 6.1.1.6 Noise ........................................................................................... 6-12

 6.1.1.7 Ecological Resources .................................................................. 6-13

 6.1.1.8 Visual Resources......................................................................... 6-52

 6.1.1.9 Cultural Resources ...................................................................... 6-57

 6.1.1.10 Indian Tribal Concerns ............................................................... 6-58

 6.1.1.11 Socioeconomics .......................................................................... 6-59

 6.1.1.12 Environmental Justice ................................................................. 6-65

 6.1.1.13 Hazardous Materials and Waste Management ............................ 6-67

 6.1.1.14 Health and Safety ........................................................................ 6-68

 6.1.2 Impacts of Alternative 2, Proposed Plan Amendment ............................... 6-69

 6.1.2.1 Land Use ..................................................................................... 6-70

 6.1.2.2 Soil and Geologic Resources ...................................................... 6-72

 6.1.2.3 Paleontological Resources .......................................................... 6-72

 6.1.2.4 Water Resources ......................................................................... 6-74

 6.1.2.5 Air Quality .................................................................................. 6-74

 6.1.2.6 Noise ........................................................................................... 6-75

 6.1.2.7 Ecological Resources .................................................................. 6-76

 6.1.2.8 Visual Resources......................................................................... 6-112

 6.1.2.9 Cultural Resources ...................................................................... 6-112

 6.1.2.10 Indian Tribal Concerns ............................................................... 6-117

 6.1.2.11 Socioeconomics .......................................................................... 6-118

 6.1.2.12 Environmental Justice ................................................................. 6-118

 6.1.2.13 Hazardous Materials and Waste Management ............................ 6-119

 6.1.2.14 Health and Safety ........................................................................ 6-120

 6.1.3 Impacts of Alternative 3, Research Lands Focus....................................... 6-121

 6.1.3.1 Land Use ..................................................................................... 6-123

 6.1.3.2 Soil and Geologic Resources ...................................................... 6-126

 6.1.3.3 Paleontological Resources .......................................................... 6-128
Final OSTS PEIS 

iv 

CONTENTS (Cont.) 

 6.1.3.4 Water Resources ......................................................................... 6-130

 6.1.3.5 Air Quality .................................................................................. 6-134

 6.1.3.6 Noise ........................................................................................... 6-135

 6.1.3.7 Ecological Resources .................................................................. 6-135

 6.1.3.8 Visual Resources......................................................................... 6-160

 6.1.3.9 Cultural Resources ...................................................................... 6-166

 6.1.3.10 Indian Tribal Concerns ............................................................... 6-169

 6.1.3.11 Socioeconomics .......................................................................... 6-170

 6.1.3.12 Environmental Justice ................................................................. 6-171

 6.1.3.13 Hazardous Materials and Waste Management ............................ 6-171

 6.1.3.14 Health and Safety ........................................................................ 6-175

 6.1.4 Impacts of Alternative 4, Moderate Development ..................................... 6-176

 6.1.4.1 Land Use ..................................................................................... 6-177

 6.1.4.2 Soil and Geologic Resources ...................................................... 6-180

 6.1.4.3 Paleontological Resources .......................................................... 6-180

 6.1.4.4 Water Resources ......................................................................... 6-181

 6.1.4.5 Air Quality .................................................................................. 6-181

 6.1.4.6 Noise ........................................................................................... 6-182

 6.1.4.7 Ecological Resources .................................................................. 6-183

 6.1.4.8 Visual Resources......................................................................... 6-218

 6.1.4.9 Cultural Resources ...................................................................... 6-225

 6.1.4.10 Indian Tribal Concerns ............................................................... 6-225

 6.1.4.11 Socioeconomics .......................................................................... 6-226

 6.1.4.12 Environmental Justice ................................................................. 6-226

 6.1.4.13 Hazardous Materials and Waste Management ............................ 6-226

 6.1.4.14 Health and Safety ........................................................................ 6-227

 6.1.5 Comparison of Oil Shale Alternatives ....................................................... 6-228

 6.1.5.1 Land Use ..................................................................................... 6-229

 6.1.5.2 Soil and Geologic Resources ...................................................... 6-231

 6.1.5.3 Paleontological Resources .......................................................... 6-231

 6.1.5.4 Water Resources ......................................................................... 6-232

 6.1.5.5 Air Quality .................................................................................. 6-234

 6.1.5.6 Noise ........................................................................................... 6-234

 6.1.5.7 Ecological Resources .................................................................. 6-235

 6.1.5.8 Visual Resources......................................................................... 6-241

 6.1.5.9 Cultural Resources ...................................................................... 6-242

 6.1.5.10 Indian Tribal Concerns ............................................................... 6-243

 6.1.5.11 Socioeconomics .......................................................................... 6-244

 6.1.5.12 Environmental Justice ................................................................. 6-245

 6.1.5.13 Hazardous Materials and Waste Management ............................ 6-245

 6.1.5.14 Health and Safety ........................................................................ 6-245

 6.1.6 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................... 6-246
Final OSTS PEIS 

v 

CONTENTS (Cont.) 

 6.1.6.1 Overview of Assumptions and Impact-Producing Factors 

 for Major Activities in the Study Area ....................................... 6-248

 6.1.6.2 Projected Levels of Major Activities in the Study Area ............. 6-259

 6.1.6.3 Cumulative Impacts Assessment for Possible Oil Shale 

 Development That Could Occur under Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 

 and 4 ............................................................................................ 6-293 

 6.1.7 Other NEPA Considerations ...................................................................... 6-318

 6.1.7.1 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts .................................................... 6-318

 6.1.7.2 Short-Term Use of the Environment and Long-Term 

 Productivity ................................................................................ 6-322

 6.1.7.3 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources ........... 6-323

 6.1.7.4 Mitigation of Adverse Effects..................................................... 6-324

 6.2 Tar Sands Alternatives ........................................................................................... 6-324

 6.2.1 Impacts of Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative, No Change to 

 2008 Decision ............................................................................................ 6-325

 6.2.1.1 Land Use ..................................................................................... 6-326

 6.2.1.2 Soil and Geologic Resources ...................................................... 6-330

 6.2.1.3 Paleontological Resources .......................................................... 6-332

 6.2.1.4 Water Resources ......................................................................... 6-334

 6.2.1.5 Air Quality .................................................................................. 6-335

 6.2.1.6 Noise ........................................................................................... 6-336

 6.2.1.7 Ecological Resources .................................................................. 6-337

 6.2.1.8 Visual Resources......................................................................... 6-354

 6.2.1.9 Cultural Resources ...................................................................... 6-364

 6.2.1.10 Indian Tribal Concerns ............................................................... 6-366

 6.2.1.11 Socioeconomics .......................................................................... 6-367

 6.2.1.12 Environmental Justice ................................................................. 6-369

 6.2.1.13 Hazardous Materials and Waste Management ............................ 6-370

 6.2.1.14 Health and Safety ........................................................................ 6-371

 6.2.2 Impacts of Alternative 2, Proposed Plan Amendment ............................... 6-372

 6.2.2.1 Land Use ..................................................................................... 6-373

 6.2.2.2 Soil and Geologic Resources ...................................................... 6-374

 6.2.2.3 Paleontological Resources .......................................................... 6-376

 6.2.2.4 Water Resources ......................................................................... 6-376

 6.2.2.5 Air Quality .................................................................................. 6-376

 6.2.2.6 Noise ........................................................................................... 6-377

 6.2.2.7 Ecological Resources .................................................................. 6-378

 6.2.2.8 Visual Resources......................................................................... 6-399

 6.2.2.9 Cultural Resources ...................................................................... 6-399

 6.2.2.10 Indian Tribal Concerns ............................................................... 6-405

 6.2.2.11 Socioeconomics .......................................................................... 6-406

 6.2.2.12 Environmental Justice ................................................................. 6-406

 6.2.2.13 Hazardous Materials and Waste Management ............................ 6-406
Final OSTS PEIS 

vi 

CONTENTS (Cont.) 

 6.2.2.14 Health and Safety ........................................................................ 6-407

 6.2.3 Impacts of Alternative 3, Consideration only of a Pending 

 Commercial Lease; Classification of the Public Lands for 

 No Application for Tar Sands Leasing ...................................................... 6-408

 6.2.3.1 Land Use ..................................................................................... 6-409

 6.2.3.2 Soil and Geologic Resources ...................................................... 6-409

 6.2.3.3 Paleontological Resources .......................................................... 6-410

 6.2.3.4 Water Resources ......................................................................... 6-410

 6.2.3.5 Air Quality .................................................................................. 6-412

 6.2.3.6 Noise ........................................................................................... 6-412

 6.2.3.7 Ecological Resources .................................................................. 6-413

 6.2.3.8 Visual Resources......................................................................... 6-429

 6.2.3.9 Cultural Resources ...................................................................... 6-432

 6.2.3.10 Indian Tribal Concerns ............................................................... 6-434

 6.2.3.11 Socioeconomics .......................................................................... 6-434

 6.2.3.12 Environmental Justice ................................................................. 6-435

 6.2.3.13 Hazardous Materials and Waste Management ............................ 6-435

 6.2.3.14 Health and Safety ........................................................................ 6-435

 6.2.4 Impacts of Alternative 4, Moderate Development ..................................... 6-436

 6.2.4.1 Land Use ..................................................................................... 6-436

 6.2.4.2 Soil and Geologic Resources ...................................................... 6-437

 6.2.4.3 Paleontological Resources .......................................................... 6-437

 6.2.4.4 Water Resources ......................................................................... 6-439

 6.2.4.5 Air Quality .................................................................................. 6-439

 6.2.4.6 Noise ........................................................................................... 6-440

 6.2.4.7 Ecological Resources .................................................................. 6-441

 6.2.4.8 Visual Resources......................................................................... 6-461

 6.2.4.9 Cultural Resources ...................................................................... 6-468

 6.2.4.10 Indian Tribal Concerns ............................................................... 6-470

 6.2.4.11 Socioeconomics .......................................................................... 6-471

 6.2.4.12 Environmental Justice ................................................................. 6-471

 6.2.4.13 Hazardous Materials and Waste Management ............................ 6-471

 6.2.3.14 Health and Safety ........................................................................ 6-471

 6.2.5 Comparison of Tar Sands Alternatives ...................................................... 6-471

 6.2.5.1 Land Use ..................................................................................... 6-472

 6.2.5.2 Soil and Geologic Resources ...................................................... 6-472

 6.2.5.3 Paleontological Resources .......................................................... 6-473

 6.2.5.4 Water Resources ......................................................................... 6-473

 6.2.5.5 Air Quality .................................................................................. 6-474

 6.2.5.6 Noise ........................................................................................... 6-475

 6.2.5.7 Ecological Resources .................................................................. 6-476

 6.2.5.8 Visual Resources......................................................................... 6-480

 6.2.5.9 Cultural Resources ...................................................................... 6-481
Final OSTS PEIS 

vii 

CONTENTS (Cont.) 

 6.2.5.10 Indian Tribal Concerns ............................................................... 6-482

 6.2.5.11 Socioeconomics ........................................................................... 6-483

 6.2.5.12 Environmental Justice ................................................................. 6-483

 6.2.5.13 Hazardous Materials and Waste Management ............................ 6-483

 6.2.5.14 Health and Safety ........................................................................ 6-484

 6.2.6 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................... 6-484

 6.2.6.1 Overview of Assumptions and Impact-Producing Factors 

 of Major Activities in the Study Area ......................................... 6-486

 6.2.6.2 Projected Levels of Major Activities in the Study Area ............. 6-496

 6.2.6.3 Cumulative Impacts Assessment for the Possible Tar Sands 

 Development That Could Occur under Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 

 and 4 ............................................................................................ 6-514

 6.2.7 Other NEPA Considerations ...................................................................... 6-536

 6.2.7.1 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts .................................................... 6-536

 6.2.7.2 Short-Term Uses of the Environment and Long-Term 

 Productivity ................................................................................. 6-540

 6.2.7.3 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources ........... 6-541

 6.2.7.4 Mitigation of Adverse Impacts ................................................... 6-542

 6.3 References .............................................................................................................. 6-543

FIGURES 

6.1.1-1 Lands Available for Application for Oil Shale Leasing under Alternative 1 

 in Relation to Wild Horse and Burro Herd Management Areas ............................ 6-8

6.1.1-2 Lands Available for Application for Oil Shale Leasing under Alternative 1 

 in Relation to the Summer and Winter Ranges of the Mule Deer ......................... 6-20

6.1.1-3 Lands Available for Application for Oil Shale Leasing under Alternative 1 

 in Relation to the Summer and Winter Ranges of the Elk ..................................... 6-21

6.1.1-4 Designated Critical Habitat of Threatened and Endangered Species That 

 Are in or near Lands Available for Application for Leasing under 

 Alternative 1........................................................................................................... 6-50

6.1.1-5 Overlap of Lands Available for Application for Leasing under Alternative 1 

 with Core Habitat Areas of the Greater Sage-Grouse ............................................ 6-51

6.1.1-6 Scenic Resource Areas within the 5-mi and 15-mi Zones around the Lands 

 Available for Application for Leasing under Alternative 1 in Colorado ............... 6-53 
Final OSTS PEIS 

viii 

FIGURES (Cont.) 

6.1.1-7 Scenic Resource Areas within the 5-mi and 15-mi Zones around the Lands 

 Available for Application for Leasing under Alternative 1 in Utah ...................... 6-54

6.1.1-8 Scenic Resource Areas within the 5-mi and 15-mi Zones around the Lands 

 Available for Application for Leasing under Alternative 1 in Wyoming .............. 6-55 

6.1.2-1 Lands Available for Application for Oil Shale Leasing under Alternative 2 

 in Relation to Wild Horse and Burro Herd Management Areas ............................ 6-73

6.1.2-2 Lands Available for Application for Oil Shale Leasing under Alternative 2 

 in Relation to the Summer and Winter Ranges of the Mule Deer ......................... 6-81

6.1.2-3 Lands Available for Application for Oil Shale Leasing under Alternative 2 

 in Relation to the Summer and Winter Ranges of the Elk ..................................... 6-82 

6.1.2-4 Designated Critical Habitat of Threatened and Endangered Species near 

 Lands Available for Application for Leasing for Oil Shale under 

 Alternative 2........................................................................................................... 6-110 

6.1.2-5 Distribution of Core and Priority Habitat Areas and Lek Sites for 

 Greater Sage-Grouse near Lands Available for Leasing for Oil Shale 

 under Alternative 2 ................................................................................................ 6-111

6.1.2-6 Scenic Resource Areas within the 5- and 15-mi Zones around the Lands 

 Available for Application for Leasing under Alternative 2 in Colorado ............... 6-113

6.1.2-7 Scenic Resource Areas within the 5- and 15-mi Zones around the Lands 

 Available for Application for Leasing under Alternative 2 in Utah ...................... 6-114

6.1.2-8 Scenic Resource Areas within the 5- and 15-mi Zones around the Lands 

 Available for Application for Leasing under Alternative 2 in Wyoming .............. 6-115

6.1.3-1 Lands Available for Application for Oil Shale Leasing under Alternative 3 

 in Relation to Wild Horse and Burro Herd Management Areas ........................... 6-127

6.1.3-2 Lands Available for Application Oil Shale Leasing under Alternative 3 in 

 Relation to the Summer and Winter Ranges of the Mule Deer ............................. 6-143

6.1.3-3 Lands Available for Application for Oil Shale Leasing under Alternative 3 

 in Relation to the Summer and Winter Ranges of the Elk ..................................... 6-144

6.1.3-4 Designated Critical Habitat of Threatened and Endangered Species That 

 Are near Oil Shale RD&D Areas ........................................................................... 6-158 
Final OSTS PEIS 

ix 

FIGURES (Cont.)

6.1.3-5 Distribution of Core and Priority Habitat Areas for Greater Sage-Grouse 

 That Are near Oil Shale RD&D Areas .................................................................. 6-159

6.1.3-6 Scenic Resource Areas within the 5- and 15-mi Zones around the Lands 

 Available for Application for Leasing under Alternative 3 in Utah ...................... 6-164

6.1.3-7 Scenic Resource Areas within the 5- and 15-mi Zones around the Lands 

 Available for Application for Leasing under Alternative 3 in Colorado ............... 6-165

6.1.4-1 Lands Available for Application for Oil Shale Leasing under Alternative 4 

 in Relation to Wild Horse and Burro Herd Management Areas ............................ 6-179

6.1.4-2 Lands Available for Application for Oil Shale Leasing under Alternative 4 

 in Relation to the Summer and Winter Ranges of the Mule Deer ......................... 6-188

6.1.4-3 Lands Available for Application for Oil Shale Leasing under Alternative 4 

 in Relation to the Summer and Winter Ranges of the Elk ..................................... 6-189

6.1.4-4 Designated Critical Habitats of Threatened and Endangered Species That 

 Are near Lands Available for Application for Leasing for Oil Shale under 

 Alternative 4........................................................................................................... 6-219

6.1.4-5 Distribution of Core and Priority Habitat Areas and Lek Sites for Greater 

 Sage-Grouse That Are near Lands Available for Application for Leasing 

 for Oil Shale under Alternative 4 ........................................................................... 6-220

6.1.4-6 Scenic Resource Areas within the 5- and 15-mi Zones around the Lands 

 Available for Application for Leasing under Alternative 4 in Colorado ............... 6-221

6.1.4-7 Scenic Resource Areas within the 5- and 15-mi Zones around the Lands 

 Available for Application for Leasing under Alternative 4 in Utah ...................... 6-222

6.1.4-8 Scenic Resource Areas within the 5- and 15-mi Zones around the Lands 

 Available for Application for Leasing under Alternative 4 in Wyoming .............. 6-223

6.1.6-1 Agricultural Water Uses in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming in the Upper 

 Colorado River Basin from 1970 through 2008 .................................................... 6-298

6.1.6-2 Municipal and Industrial Water Uses in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming 

 in the Upper Colorado River Basin from 1970 through 2008 ............................... 6-298

6.1.6-3 Water Exports from the Upper Colorado River Basin in Colorado, Utah, 

 and Wyoming from 1970 through 2008................................................................. 6-299
Final OSTS PEIS 

x 

FIGURES (Cont.) 

6.1.6-4 Combined Water Uses and Losses in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming in the 

 Upper Colorado River Basin from 1970 through 2008 ......................................... 6-299

6.2.1-1 Lands Available for Application for Tar Sands Leasing under Alternative 1 

 in Relation to Wild Horse and Burro Herd Management Areas ............................ 6-333

6.2.1-2 Lands Available for Application for Tar Sands Leasing under Alternative 1 

 in Relation to the Summer and Winter Ranges of the Mule Deer ......................... 6-342

6.2.1-3 Lands Available for Application for Tar Sands Leasing under Alternative 1 

 in Relation to the Summer and Winter Ranges of the Elk ..................................... 6-343

6.2.1-4 Designated Critical Habitats of Threatened and Endangered Species That 

 Are in or near Pending Tar Sands Lease Areas under Alternative 1 ..................... 6-358 

6.2.1-5 Distribution of Core and Priority Habitat Areas for Greater Sage-Grouse 

 That Are in or near Pending Tar Sands Lease Areas under Alternative 1 ............. 6-359 

6.2.1-6 Scenic Resource Areas within the 5- and 15-mi Zones around the Lands 

 Available for Application for Leasing under Alternative 1 for the 

 Asphalt Ridge, Pariette, and Raven Ridge STSAs ................................................ 6-360

6.2.1-7 Scenic Resource Areas within the 5- and 15-mi Zones around the Lands 

 Available for Application for Leasing under Alternative 1 for the 

 Argyle Canyon, Hill Creek, P.R. Spring, and Sunnyside STSAs .......................... 6-361

6.2.1-8 Scenic Resource Areas within the 5- and 15-mi Zones around the Lands 

 Available for Application for Leasing under Alternative 1 for the 

 San Rafael STSA ................................................................................................... 6-362

6.2.1-9 Scenic Resource Areas within the 5- and 15-mi Zones around the Lands 

 Available for Application for Leasing under Alternative 1 for the 

 Tar Sand Triangle and White Canyon STSAs ....................................................... 6-363

6.2.2-1 Lands Available for Application for Tar Sands Leasing under Alternative 2 

 in Relation to Wild Horse and Burro Herd Management Areas ............................ 6-375

6.2.2-2 Lands Available for Application for Tar Sands Leasing under Alternative 2 

 in Relation to the Summer and Winter Ranges of the Mule Deer ......................... 6-382

6.2.2-3 Lands Available for Application for Tar Sands Leasing under Alternative 2 

 in Relation to the Summer and Winter Ranges of the Elk ..................................... 6-383
Final OSTS PEIS 

xi 

FIGURES (Cont.) 

6.2.2-4 Designated Critical Habitats of Threatened and Endangered Species That 

 Are in or near Tar Sands Lease Areas under Alternative 2 ................................... 6-397

6.2.2-5 Distribution of Core and Priority Habitat Areas for Greater Sage-Grouse 

 That Are in or near Pending Tar Sands Lease Areas under Alternative 2 ............. 6-398

6.2.2-6 Scenic Resource Areas within the 5- and 15-mi Zones around the Lands 

 Available for Application for Leasing under Alternative 2 for the 

 Asphalt Ridge, Pariette, and Raven Ridge STSAs ................................................ 6-400

6.2.2-7 Scenic Resource Areas within the 5- and 15-mi Zones around the Lands 

 Available for Application for Leasing under Alternative 2 for the Hill Creek, 

 P.R. Spring, and Sunnyside STSAs ....................................................................... 6-401

6.2.2-8 Scenic Resource Areas within the 5- and 15-mi Zones around the Lands 

 Available for Application for Leasing under Alternative 2 for the 

 San Rafael STSA ................................................................................................... 6-402

6.2.2-9 Scenic Resource Areas within the 5- and 15-mi Zones around the Lands 

 Available for Application for Leasing under Alternative 2 for the 

 Tar Sand Triangle and White Canyon STSAs ....................................................... 6-403

6.2.3-1 Locations of Lands Available for Tar Sands Leasing under Alternative 3 

 in Relation to Wild Horse and Burro Herd Management Areas ............................ 6-411

6.2.3-2 Locations of Lands Available for Tar Sands Leasing under Alternative 3 

 in Relation to the Summer and Winter Ranges of the Mule Deer ......................... 6-416

6.2.3-3 Locations of Lands Available for Tar Sands Leasing under Alternative 3 

 in Relation to Summer and Winter Ranges of the Elk ........................................... 6-417

6.2.3-4 Designated Critical Habitats of Threatened and Endangered Species That 

 Are near Pending Tar Sands Lease Areas under Alternative 3 .............................. 6-430

6.2.3-5 Distribution of Core and Priority Habitat Areas for Greater Sage-Grouse 

 That Are in or near Pending Tar Sands Lease Areas under Alternative 3 ............. 6-431

6.2.3-6 Scenic Resource Areas within the 5- and 15-mi Zones around the Lands 

 Available for Application for Leasing under Alternative 3 for the 

 Asphalt Ridge STSA .............................................................................................. 6-433

6.2.4-1 Lands Available for Application for Tar Sands Leasing under 

 Alternative 4 in Relation to Wild Horse and Burro Herd Management Areas ...... 6-438
Final OSTS PEIS 

xii 

FIGURES (Cont.) 

6.2.4-2 Lands Available for Application for Tar Sands Leasing under Alternative 4 

 in Relation to the Summer and Winter Ranges of the Mule Deer ......................... 6-445

6.2.4-3 Lands Available for Application for Tar Sands Leasing under Alternative 4 

 in Relation to the Summer and Winter Ranges of the Elk ..................................... 6-446

6.2.4-4 Designated Critical Habitats of Threatened and Endangered Species That 

 Are in or near Pending Tar Sands Lease Areas under Alternative 4 ..................... 6-462 

6.2.4-5 Distribution of Core and Priority Habitat Areas for Greater Sage-Grouse 

 That Are near Pending Tar Sands Lease Areas under Alternative 4 ..................... 6-463 

6.2.4-6 Scenic Resource Areas within the 5- and 15-mi Zones around the Lands 

 Available for Application for Leasing under Alternative 4 for the 

 Asphalt Ridge, Pariette, and Raven Ridge STSAs ................................................ 6-464

6.2.4-7 Scenic Resource Areas within the 5- and 15-mi Zones around the Lands 

 Available for Application for Leasing under Alternative 4 for the Hill Creek, 

 P.R. Spring, and Sunnyside STSAs ....................................................................... 6-465

6.2.4-8 Scenic Resource Areas within the 5- and 15-mi Zones around the Lands 

 Available for Application for Leasing under Alternative 4 for the 

 San Rafael STSA ................................................................................................... 6-466

6.2.4-9 Scenic Resource Areas within the 5- and 15-mi Zones around the Lands 

 Available for Application for Leasing under Alternative 4 for the Tar Sand 

 Triangle and White Canyon STSAs ....................................................................... 6-467

TABLES 

6.1.1-1 Designated ACECs in the Study Area Not Closed to Mineral Location 

 and Available for Leasing under Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4 ................................. 6-6

6.1.1-2 Areas with Wilderness Characteristics That Overlap with Lands Available 

 for Application for Commercial Oil Shale Leasing under Alternatives 1, 2, 

 3, and 4 and the Amount of Overlap ...................................................................... 6-7

6.1.1-3 Perennial Streams Occurring within the Lease Areas with a 2-mi Buffer ............. 6-12 
Final OSTS PEIS 

xiii 

TABLES (Cont.) 

6.1.1-4 Streams and Approximate Miles of Each Stream in the Geologically 

 Prospective Areas of the Oil Shale Basins and in the Vicinity of Areas 

 To Be Considered for Leasing under Each of the Alternatives ............................. 6-15

6.1.1-5 Wildlife Habitat Protected by Stipulations in BLM RMPs within the 

 Alternative 1 Oil Shale Lease Areas ...................................................................... 6-19

6.1.1-6 State-Identified Elk and Mule Deer Habitat Present in the Alternative 1 

 Oil Shale Lease Areas ............................................................................................ 6-22

6.1.1-7 Habitat for Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species Protected 

 by Stipulations in BLM RMPs within the Alternative 1 Oil Shale Lease 

 Areas ...................................................................................................................... 6-23 

6.1.1-8 Potential Effects of Commercial Oil Shale Development under Alternative 1 

 on BLM-Designated Sensitive Species, Federal Candidates for Listing, 

 Stated-Listed Species, and State Species of Concern ............................................ 6-24

6.1.1-9 Potential Effects of Commercial Oil Shale Development under Alternative 1 

 on Federally Listed Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Species ................... 6-47

6.1.1-10 Visually Sensitive Areas That Could Be Affected by Commercial Oil Shale 

 Projects within the Lease Areas Identified under Alternative 1 ............................ 6-56

6.1.1-11 Total Employment for Each ROI and State ........................................................... 6-63

6.1.1-12 Total Population for Each ROI and State .............................................................. 6-63

6.1.1-13 Annual State and ROI Public Service Expenditures Comparing Each ROI 

 and State ................................................................................................................. 6-64

6.1.1-14 Estimated ROI Economic Impacts of RD&D Oil Shale Development 

 Projects Common to All Alternatives .................................................................... 6-65

6.1.2-1 State-Identified Elk and Mule Deer Habitat Present in the Alternative 2 

 Oil Shale Lease Areas ............................................................................................ 6-83 

6.1.2-2 Potential Effects of Commercial Oil Shale Development under Alternative 2 

 on BLM-Designated Sensitive Species, Federal Candidates for Listing, 

 State-Listed Species, and State Species of Special Concern ................................. 6-84 

6.1.2-3 Potential Effects of Commercial Oil Shale Development under Alternative 2 

 on Federally Listed Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Species ................... 6-106
Final OSTS PEIS 

xiv 

TABLES (Cont.) 

6.1.2-4 Visually Sensitive Areas That Could Be Affected by Commercial Oil 

 Shale Projects Developed in the Alternative 2 Lease Areas .................................. 6-116

6.1.2-5 Minority and Low-Income Populations in the Oil Shale Resource Area 

 and Buffer .............................................................................................................. 6-119

6.1.3-1 State-Identified Elk and Mule Deer Habitat Present in the Alternative 3 

 Oil Shale Lease Areas ............................................................................................ 6-145

6.1.3-2 Potential Effects of Commercial Oil Shale Development under Alternative 3 

 on BLM-Designated Sensitive Species, Federal Candidates for Listing, 

 State-Listed Species, and State Species of Special Concern ................................. 6-146

6.1.3-3 Potential Effects of Commercial Oil Shale Development under Alternative 3 

 on Federally Listed Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Species ................... 6-155

6.1.3-4 Visually Sensitive Areas That Could Be Affected by Oil Shale Projects 

 Developed in the Alternative 3 Lease Areas .......................................................... 6-166

6.1.3-5 Minority and Low-Income Populations in the Oil Shale Resource Area 

 and Buffer .............................................................................................................. 6-172

6.1.4-1 Wildlife Habitat Protected by Stipulations in BLM RMPs within the 

 Alternative 4 Oil Shale Lease Areas ...................................................................... 6-187

6.1.4-2 State-Identified Elk and Mule Deer Habitat Present in the Oil Shale 

 Potential Lease Areas Identified under Alternative 4 ............................................ 6-190

6.1.4-3 Habitat for Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species Protected by 

 Stipulations in BLM RMPs within the Alternative 4 Oil Shale Lease Areas ........ 6-192 

6.1.4-4 Potential Effects of Commercial Oil Shale Development under Alternative 4 

 on BLM-Designated Sensitive Species, Federal Candidates for Listing, 

 State-Listed Species, and State Species of Special Concern ................................. 6-193 

6.1.4-5 Potential Effects of Commercial Oil Shale Development under Alternative 4 

 on Federally Listed Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Species ................... 6-215

6.1.4-6 Visually Sensitive Areas That Could Be Affected by Commercial Oil 

 Shale Projects Developed in the Alternative 4 Lease Areas .................................. 6-224

6.1.5-1 Acreages Available for Potential Development under Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 

 and 4 ....................................................................................................................... 6-230
Final OSTS PEIS 

xv 

TABLES (Cont.) 

6.1.5-2 Available Acreage Overlying Geologic Formations with High Potential 

 to Contain Important Paleontological Resources by Oil Shale Alternative ........... 6-232

6.1.5-3 Perennial Stream Miles within the Four Oil Shale Basins ..................................... 6-233

6.1.5-4 Acreage of Lands in Which Plant Communities and Habitats Could Be 

 Impacted by Future Commercial Oil Shale Development ..................................... 6-237

6.1.5-5 ACECs with Sensitive Plant Species and/or Sensitive Plant Communities 

 in or near Lands Available for Lease Application under the Oil Shale 

 Alternatives ............................................................................................................ 6-238

6.1.5-6 Wildlife Habitat Protected by Stipulations in BLM RMPs within the 

 Alternative 1, 2, 3, and 4 Oil Shale Lease Areas ................................................... 6-240

6.1.5-7 State-Identified Elk and Mule Deer Habitat Present in the Oil Shale Lease 

 Areas Identified under Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4 ................................................. 6-240

6.1.5-8 Threatened and Endangered Species and Selected Habitats Present in 

 Potential Lease Sale Areas That Could Be Affected by Future Commercial 

 Oil Shale Development .......................................................................................... 6-241

6.1.5-9 Available Acreage under Each Alternative with the Potential to Contain 

 Cultural Resources ................................................................................................. 6-243

6.1.6-1 Assumptions Associated with Oil and Gas Drilling .............................................. 6-249

6.1.6-2 Assumptions Associated with Coal Mining and Preparation ................................ 6-250

6.1.6-3 Assumptions Associated with Coal-Fired and Natural Gas–Fired Power 

 Plants ...................................................................................................................... 6-254

6.1.6-4 Projected Levels of Major Activities on BLM-Administered and 

 Nonfederal Lands Considered in the Cumulative Impacts Assessment for 

 Oil Shale Development in Colorado ...................................................................... 6-260

6.1.6-5 Projected Levels of Major Activities for Seven Planning Areas Considered 

 in the Cumulative Impacts Assessment for Oil Shale Development in Utah ........ 6-268

6.1.6-6 Projected Levels of Major Activities Considered in the Cumulative 

 Impacts Assessment for Oil Shale Development in Wyoming .............................. 6-282

6.1.6-7 Energy Corridors on Public Lands in the Three-State Area .................................. 6-289
Final OSTS PEIS 

xvi 

TABLES (Cont.)

6.1.6-8 Electric Power–Generating Units in ROI Counties in the Three-State Area 

 in 2005 ................................................................................................................... 6-290 

6.1.6-9 Summary of Cumulative Long-Term Land Use for Oil Shale Development 

 and Other Major Industrial Activities .................................................................... 6-295

6.1.6-10 Major Water Uses in the Next 20 Years in the Three-State Study Area 

 Compared with Use for Potential Oil Shale Development .................................... 6-300

6.2.1-1 Amount of Land Available for Application for Commercial Tar Sands 

 Leasing under All Alternatives .............................................................................. 6-327

6.2.1-2 ACECs Not Closed to Mineral Entry Overlapping with Lands Available 

 for Application for Commercial Tar Sands Leasing under Alternative 1 

 and the Amount of Overlap .................................................................................... 6-329 

6.2.1-3 Areas with Wilderness Characteristics That Overlap with Lands Available 

 for Application for Commercial Tar Sands Leasing under All Alternatives 

 and the Amount of Overlap .................................................................................... 6-331

6.2.1-4 Perennial Streams Occurring in Utah within the Lease Areas Identified 

 under Alternative 1 ................................................................................................ 6-338

6.2.1-5 Streams and Approximate Miles of Each Stream in STSAs and in the 

 Vicinity of Areas To Be Considered for Leasing under Alternatives 1, 2, 

 and 4 ....................................................................................................................... 6-339

6.2.1-6 Wildlife Habitat Protected by Stipulations in BLM RMPs within the 

 Alternative 1 Tar Sands Lease Areas ..................................................................... 6-341

6.2.1-7 State-Identified Elk and Mule Deer Habitat Present in the Alternative 1 

 Tar Sands Lease Areas ........................................................................................... 6-344

6.2.1-8 Habitat for Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species Protected by 

 Stipulations in BLM RMPs within the Alternative 1 Tar Sands Lease Areas ....... 6-345

6.2.1-9 Potential Effects of Commercial Tar Sands Development in Utah under 

 Alternative 1 on BLM-Designated Sensitive Species, Federal Candidates 

 for Listing, State-Listed Species, and State Species of Special Concern .............. 6-346

6.2.1-10 Potential Effects of Commercial Tar Sands Development in Utah under 

 Alternative 1 on Federally Listed Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed 

 Species ................................................................................................................... 6-355
Final OSTS PEIS 

xvii 

TABLES (Cont.) 

6.2.1-11 Visually Sensitive Areas That Could Be Affected by Commercial Tar 

 Sands Projects Developed in Potential Lease Areas under Alternative 1 .............. 6-365

6.2.2-1 Perennial Streams in Utah within the Lease Areas Identified under 

 Alternative 2........................................................................................................... 6-379

6.2.2-2 State-Identified Elk and Mule Deer Habitat Present in the Alternative 2 

 Tar Sands Lease Areas ........................................................................................... 6-384

6.2.2-3 Potential Effects of Commercial Tar Sands Development under 

 Alternative 2 on BLM-Designated Sensitive Species, Federal Candidates 

 for Listing, State-Listed Species, and State Species of Special Concern .............. 6-385

6.2.2-4 Potential Effects of Commercial Tar Sands Development under 

 Alternative 2 on Federally Listed Threatened, Endangered, and 

 Proposed Species ................................................................................................... 6-394

6.2.2-5 Visually Sensitive Areas That Could Be Affected by Commercial 

 Tar Sands Projects Developed in Potential Lease Areas under 

 Alternative 2........................................................................................................... 6-404

6.2.3-1 Potential Effects of Commercial Tar Sands Development under 

 Alternative 3 on BLM-Designated Sensitive Species, Federal Candidates 

 for Listing, State-Listed Species, and State Species of Special Concern .............. 6-419

6.2.3-2 Potential Effects of Commercial Tar Sands Development under 

 Alternative 3 on Federally Listed Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed 

 Species ................................................................................................................... 6-427

6.2.3-3 Visually Sensitive Areas That Could Be Affected by Commercial Tar 

 Sands Projects Developed in Lease Areas under Alternative 3 ............................. 6-434

6.2.4-1 Perennial Streams in Utah within the Lease Areas Identified under 

 Alternative 4........................................................................................................... 6-442

6.2.4-2 Wildlife Habitat Protected by Stipulations in BLM RMPs within the 

 Alternative 4 Tar Sands Lease Areas ..................................................................... 6-444

6.2.4-3 State-Identified Elk and Mule Deer Habitat Present in the Alternative 4 

 Tar Sands Lease Areas ........................................................................................... 6-447

6.2.4-4 Habitat for Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species Protected by 

 Stipulations in BLM RMPs within the Alternative 4 Tar Sands Lease Areas ....... 6-448
Final OSTS PEIS 

xviii 

TABLES (Cont.)

6.2.4-5 Potential Effects of Commercial Tar Sands Development under 

 Alternative 4 on BLM-Designated Sensitive Species, Federal Candidates 

 for Listing, State-Listed Species, and State Species of Special Concern .............. 6-449

6.2.4-6 Potential Effects of Commercial Tar Sands Development under 

 Alternative 4 on Federally Listed Threatened, Endangered, and 

 Proposed Species ................................................................................................... 6-459

6.2.4-7 Visually Sensitive Areas That Could Be Affected by Commercial Tar 

 Sands Projects Developed in Lease Areas under Alternative 4 ............................. 6-469

6.2.5-1 Available Acreage Overlying Geologic Formations with High Potential 

 to Contain Important Paleontological Resources by Tar Sands Alternative.......... 6-474

6.2.5-2 ACECs with Sensitive Plant Species and/or Sensitive Plant Communities 

 in or near Lands Available for Lease Application under the Tar Sands 

 Alternatives ............................................................................................................ 6-477

6.2.5-3 Wildlife Habitat Protected by Stipulations in BLM RMPs within the 

 Alternative 1, 2, 3, and 4 Tar Sands Lease Areas .................................................. 6-479

6.2.5-4 State-Identified Elk and Mule Deer Habitat Present in the Tar Sands 

 Lease Areas Identified under Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4 ....................................... 6-479

6.2.5-5 Threatened and Endangered Species and Selected Habitats Present in 

 Potential Lease Sale Areas That Could Be Affected by Future Commercial 

 Tar Sands Development ......................................................................................... 6-480

6.2.5-6 Available Acreage under Each Alternative with the Potential to Contain 

 Cultural Resources ................................................................................................. 6-481

6.2.6-1 Assumptions Associated with Oil and Gas Drilling .............................................. 6-487

6.2.6-2 Assumptions Associated with Coal Mining and Preparation ................................ 6-488

6.2.6-3 Assumptions Associated with Coal-Fired and Natural Gas–Fired Power 

 Plants ...................................................................................................................... 6-492

6.2.6-4 Projected Levels of Major Activities for Seven Planning Areas Considered 

 on BLM-Administered and Nonfederal Lands in the Cumulative Impacts 

 Assessment for Tar Sands Development in Utah .................................................. 6-497
Final OSTS PEIS 

xix 

TABLES (Cont.) 

6.2.6-5 Electric Power–Generating Units in ROI Counties in Utah in 2005 ..................... 6-514

6.2.6-6 Summary of Cumulative Long-Term Land Use for Tar Sands Development 

 and Other Major Industrial Activities .................................................................... 6-516

6.2.6-7 Major Water Uses in the Next 20 Years in the Three-State Study Area 

 Compared with Use for Potential Tar Sands Development ................................... 6-519
Final OSTS PEIS 

xx 

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 

xxi 

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 

xxii 

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 

xxiii 

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 

xxiv 

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 

xxv 

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 

xxvi 

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 

xxvii 

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 

xxviii 

This page intentionally left blank. 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-1 

6 IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR OIL SHALE 

AND TAR SANDS ALTERNATIVES 

6.1 OIL SHALE ALTERNATIVES 

 This section presents the impacts associated with the four oil shale alternatives. 

Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative, is discussed in Section 6.1.1. The impacts of 

Alternatives 2 (Conservation Focus), 3 (Research Lands Focus), and 4 (Moderate Development) 

are discussed in Sections 6.1.2, 6.1.3, and 6.1.4, respectively. Section 6.1.5 presents a 

comparison of the oil shale alternatives. Discussions of the cumulative impacts and of other 

NEPA considerations associated with Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 are presented in Sections 6.1.6 and 

6.1.7, respectively. 

 Information contained in Sections 6.1.1 through 6.1.4 describes (1) the impact of the land 

allocation decisions proposed in the four programmatic alternatives and (2) the potential impact 

of future commercial oil shale development on the public lands that could be available for 

application for future leasing and development in each alternative. Although commercial leasing 

and development are not being approved at this time, the information on potential impacts is 

being presented to help agency decision makers and the public understand the effects of potential 

future development. Together with the information contained in Chapter 4, this analysis aids 

agency decision makers in making an informed decision regarding the relative merits of the four 

alternatives. It is also intended that these analyses will help identify information that will be 

needed to process future applications for commercial development. 

Development of the six ongoing and two recently approved RD&D leases and their 

associated PRLAs is common to all four alternatives. To avoid duplication, the analysis of 

impacts of these existing leases is provided only in Section 6.1.3, which describes the impacts of 

the research lands focused alternative. 

 On the basis of analyses contained in the PEIS, the BLM has determined that with the 

exception noted in the socioeconomic analysis regarding potential impacts on land values, the 

land use plan amendments contained in Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would not result in any impacts 

on the environment or socioeconomic setting. However, the future development of commercial 

oil shale projects that could be approved after subsequent NEPA analysis on lands identified in 

these alternatives, as well as in Alternative 1, as available for application for leasing would have 

impacts on the environment and the socioeconomic setting. The bulk of the information 

presented in Sections 6.1.1 through 6.1.4 identifies in a non-site-specific manner the potential 

impacts associated with future commercial oil shale development under each alternative. The 

magnitude of the impacts cannot be quantified at this time because key information about the 

location of commercial projects, the technologies that may be employed, the project size or 

production level, development time lines, and mitigation that might be employed are unknown. 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-2 

6.1.1 Impacts of Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative, No Change to 2008 Decision 

 Under Alternative 1, the BLM would amend no BLM land use plans, leaving the 

2008 ROD decision in place keeping 2,017,741 acres of public land available for application for 

leasing for commercial development of oil shale within Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming 

(see Figures 2.3.2-1, 2.3.2-2, and 2.3.2-3). (See Section 2.3.2 for a complete description of 

Alternative 1.) These lands include about 346,609 acres in Colorado, 670,558 acres in Utah, and 

1,000,574 acres in Wyoming (Table 2.3.2-1) and comprise 1,865,542 acres of 

BLM-administered lands and 125,681 acres of split estate lands. Included within these areas, as 

discussed in Section 2.3.2, are the six 160-acre RD&D projects leased by the BLM in 2007 and 

two RD&D leases approved in 2012. These include seven projects in Rio Blanco County, 

Colorado, evaluating in situ processes, and one project in Uintah County, Utah, evaluating 

underground mining with surface retort (see Figure 2.3-2). A total of 1,280 acres are involved in 

the eight projects. 

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

environmental impact associated with Alternative 1, keeping public lands available for 

application for commercial leasing in three-state study area, but there may be impacts on land 

values. However, the future development of commercial oil shale projects on lands identified as 

available for application for commercial leasing could affect these resources. In addition, 

Alternative 1 would include the same level of development of the RD&D projects and resulting 

environmental effects, as described in Section 6.1.3 for Alternative 3. The following sections 

describe the impacts of Alternative 1 on the environment and on the socioeconomic setting. The 

sections also describe the potential impact of subsequent commercial development that might 

occur on the lands identified as available for leasing. 

 In general, potential impacts of future commercial development on specific resources 

located within the 2,017,741 acres cannot be quantified at this time because key information 

about the location of projects, the technologies that will be employed, the project size or 

production level, and development time lines are unknown. Although it is not possible to 

quantify the impacts of project development, it is possible to make observations and draw 

conclusions on the basis of certain lands being available for application for leasing and their 

overlap with specific resources. The following sections identify the potential impacts, many of 

which might be successfully avoided or mitigated, depending upon site- and project-specific 

factors and future regulations that will guide leasing actions. 

6.1.1.1 Land Use 

 Under Alternative 1, a total of 2,017,741 acres of public land in Colorado, Utah, and 

Wyoming would remain available for application for leasing for commercial development of oil 

shale (approximately 89% of the BLM-administered lands within the study area). This is 

expected to have no impacts on other land uses, although there may be some effect on land 

values. Retaining these lands as available for application for leasing does not authorize or 

approve any ground-disturbing activities that could affect these land uses; however, existing land 

uses could be adversely affected by future commercial oil shale development on these lands.
Final OSTS PEIS 6-3 

 As discussed in Section 3.1, lands within the three-state study area where future 

commercial oil shale development might occur are currently used for a wide variety of activities, 

including numerous recreational activities, mining, oil and gas production, livestock grazing, 

wild horse and burro management, communication sites, and ROW corridors (e.g., roads, 

pipelines, and transmission lines). Commercial oil shale development could have a direct effect 

on these uses, displacing them from areas that are being developed for oil shale production. 

 Future indirect impacts of oil shale development could be associated with changing 

existing off-lease land uses, including conversion of land in and around local communities from 

existing agricultural, open space, or other uses to provide services and housing for employees 

and families who move to the region in support of commercial oil shale development. Increases 

in traffic, increased access to previously remote areas, and development of oil shale facilities in 

currently undeveloped areas would continue the change in the overall character of the landscape 

that has already begun as a result of oil and gas development. The value of private ranches and 

residences in the area affected by oil shale developments or associated ROWs either may be 

reduced because of perceived noise, traffic, human health, or aesthetic concerns or may be 

increased by additional demand. 

 Oil shale development will require off-lease construction and operation of certain 

infrastructure, such as electric power plants, roads, pipelines, and transmission lines. Such 

structures and activities would likely impact both federal and nonfederal lands. Impacts could be 

either direct or indirect. The BLM does not decide the location of infrastructure on nonfederal 

land. It would be too speculative to attempt to analyze where any such electric power plant 

would be located, but it is possible that additional generation capacity could be constructed 

within the socioeconomic ROI. 

 Transmission and pipeline ROWs associated with commercial oil shale development 

would not preclude other land uses but could result in both direct and indirect impacts. Direct 

impacts, such as the loss of lands to physical structures, maintenance of ROWs free of major 

vegetation, maintenance of service roads, and noise and visual impacts on recreational users 

along the ROW, would last as long as the transmission lines and pipelines were in place. Indirect 

impacts of ROW development could include the introduction of new or increased recreational 

use to an area because of improved access, avoidance of the area for residential or recreational 

use for aesthetic reasons, and increased traffic. 

 The specific impacts on land use and the magnitude of those impacts would depend on 

project location; project size, technology employed, and scale of operations; and proximity to 

roads, transmission lines, and pipelines. Impacts on various land uses that could be caused by 

commercial development of oil shale are discussed in Section 4.2 and are summarized below. 

• Commercial oil shale development, using any technology under consideration 

in this PEIS, could result in conflict with other mineral development activities.

Oil and gas development is ongoing in many parts of the study area, and 

conflict between oil shale projects and oil and gas projects may occur. 

However, Use Agreements and various drilling technologies are available to 

resolve conflicts among willing parties. Mineral development conflicts would 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-4 

occur where resource recovery would use the same extraction method 

(i.e., surface or underground mining) on the same land; however, precedent 

leasing would typically result in a design and subsequent lease agreement that 

is compatible with development. As part of one of the RD&D projects, a 

company is investigating conducting nahcolite mining in advance of oil shale 

production. Conflict between oil shale and oil and gas or other mineral 

development would cease when oil shale development and extraction have 

been completed. 

• Where existing agricultural water rights are acquired to support oil shale 

development, existing irrigation-based agricultural uses of the land from 

which the water is acquired will be modified to support lower value dry land 

use of the lands and/or may result in a complete loss of agricultural uses in 

some areas. Some areas could be converted to nonfarm uses depending upon 

local zoning decisions. 

• Grazing activities would be precluded by commercial oil shale development in 

those portions of the lease area that were (1) undergoing active development; 

(2) being prepared for a future development phase; (3) undergoing restoration 

after development; or (4) occupied by long-term surface facilities, such as 

production facilities, office buildings, laboratories, and parking lots. 

Depending on conditions unique to the individual grazing allotment, 

reductions in authorized grazing use likely will be necessary because of loss 

of a portion of the forage base. It is possible, depending upon how commercial 

leases would be developed, that some grazing uses might be accommodated 

on parts of the leases at various times during the lease period. Once surface 

restoration of oil shale development areas is complete, a resumption of 

grazing use would be possible. 

The impact of the removal of acreage from individual grazing leases would 

be dependent upon site-specific factors regarding the grazing allotment(s) 

affected. There is a large variation in size and productivity of BLM grazing 

allotments across the PEIS area, and the loss of up to 5,760 acres for 

individual oil shale facilities from larger allotments would not be as 

significant as from smaller allotments. Some allotments could become 

completely unavailable for use. Others would lose varying percentages of 

grazing area that might affect their overall economic viability. While lands 

might be available for grazing use after completion of oil shale development 

activities, individual permittees may not be able to withstand the economic 

impacts on their operations during the development period. 

• Commercial oil shale development activities are largely incompatible with 

recreational land use (e.g., hiking, biking, fishing, hunting, bird-watching, 

OHV use, and camping). Recreational uses would be precluded from those 

portions of commercial lease areas involved in ongoing development and 

restoration activities. Impacts on vegetation, development of roads, and 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-5 

displacement of big game would degrade the recreational experiences and 

hunting opportunities near commercial oil shale projects. The impact of 

displacement of recreational uses from oil shale development lease areas 

would be highly dependent upon site-specific factors, especially the type of 

existing uses on the site. 

• Specially designated areas, including 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, and existing ACECs that are currently closed to 

mineral development, would not be available for application for commercial 

development and would not be directly affected. They might, however, incur 

indirect impacts (e.g., degraded viewsheds) resulting from commercial oil 

shale development on adjacent lands or on areas within the general vicinity. 

Section 4.9 discusses impacts on visual resources in greater detail. 

• ACECs that are not closed to mineral leasing include about 44,312 acres and 

are shown in Table 6.1.1-1. Should oil shale development occur in these areas, 

the R&I values within these designated ACECs likely would be lost. 

• Lands available for application for lease contain all or portions of areas 

that have been recognized by the BLM in Colorado and Utah as LWC. 

Table 6.1.1-2 lists these areas for all four alternatives. Should commercial 

development occur on these lands, the identified wilderness characteristics in 

both the areas that are developed and those that border the developed areas 

would be lost. Alternative 1 includes approximately 66,826 acres of these 

lands that could be subject to potential development. 

• Under this alternative, the 32,000 acres, including the existing RD&D leases, 

and, absent exceptions such as that noted above, their PRLAs, will be 

available for future leasing if the current leaseholders relinquish their existing 

leases. 

• Several wild horse and burro HMAs overlap with the lands available for 

application for leasing, including the PiceanceEast Douglas Creek HMA in 

Colorado (63,248 acres), the Hill Creek HMA in Utah (29,866 acres), and 

Adobe Town (68,257 acres), Little Colorado (207,702 acres), Salt Wells 

Creek (117,315 acres), and White Mountain (170,868 acres) HMAs in 

Wyoming (Figure 6.1.1-1). Any oil shale development that occurs in HMAs 

would need to protect wild horses and burros under the Wild Free-Roaming 

Horse and Burro Act of 1971. 

 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-6 

TABLE 6.1.1-1 Designated ACECs in the Study Area Not Closed to Mineral Location and 

Available for Leasing under Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4 

 

Area Available for Leasing (acres) 

ACEC Field Office Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 

 

White River Field Office, Colorado 

Duck Creek 3,414 0 0 0 

Dudley Bluffs 1,605 0 0 0 

Ryan Gulch 1,429 

 

Vernal Field Office, Utah 

Lower Green River 7,676 0 0 0 

Nine Mile Canyon 530 0 0 0 

Pariette Wetlands 6,532 0 0 0 

 

Kemmerer Field Office, Wyoming 

Special status plant species 24 0 0 0 

 

Rock Springs Field Office, Wyoming 

Greater Red Creeka 23,055 0 0 0 

Pine Springs 1 0 0 0 

Special status plant species 46 0 0 0 

 

Total 44,312 0 0 0 

a The Red Creek Watershed portion of the ACEC is closed to mineral entry. 

6.1.1.2 Soil and Geologic Resources 

 Under Alternative 1, a total of 2,017,741 acres of public land are available for application 

for commercial oil shale leasing would remain designated as available (Section 2.3.2). Soil and 

geologic resources could be affected by future commercial oil shale development on these lands. 

 Soil and geologic resources could be affected during project construction as a result of 

removal or compaction (e.g., during site clearing and grading, foundation excavation and 

preparation, and pipeline trenching) and by erosion during project construction and operation 

(e.g., erosion of exposed soils in construction areas or of topsoil stockpiles [see Section 4.3.1]). 

Erosion of exposed soils could also lead to increased sedimentation of nearby water bodies and 

to the generation of fugitive dust, which could affect local air quality. Project areas could remain 

susceptible to erosion until completion of construction, mining, oil shale processing, and site 

stabilization and reclamation activities (e.g., revegetation of pipeline ROWs, surface mine 

reclamation). Impacts on soil and geologic resources would be limited to the specific project 

location as well as to areas where associated off-lease infrastructure (e.g., access roads, utility 

ROWs, and power plants) would be located. For any project, the erosion potential of the soils 

would be a direct function of the lease and project location and also the soil characteristics, 

vegetative cover, and topography (i.e., slope) at that location. Development in areas that have 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-7 

TABLE 6.1.1-2 Areas with Wilderness Characteristics That Overlap with Lands 

Available for Application for Commercial Oil Shale Leasing under Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 

and 4 and the Amount of Overlapa,b

 

Amount of Overlap (acres) 

Name of Area with Wilderness 

Characteristics Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 

 

White River Field Office, Colorado 

Unnamed Areas 21,974 0 0 21,974 

 

Price Field Office, Utah 

Desolation Canyon 86 0 0 5 

Vernal Field Office, Utah 

Archy Bench A 6,731 0 0 6,730 

Bitter Creek 1,218 0 0 1,214 

Desolation Canyon 180 0 0 8 

Lower Bitter Creek 11,417 0 0 11,410 

White River 17,628c 0 0 21,286c

 

Total 88,234 0 0 88,217 

a The key characteristics of wilderness that may be considered in land use planning include an area’s 

size, appearance of naturalness, and the existence of outstanding opportunities for solitude or 

primitive and unconfined types of recreation. 

b Totals may be off due to rounding. Acreage estimates were derived from GIS data compiled to 

support the PEIS analyses. 

c 6,680 acres of the 17,628-acre White River LWC area were identified in the Vernal RMP for 

management to protect wilderness characteristics and would not be available for leasing. The 

remainder of the area shown here is not being managed to protect wilderness characteristics. 

erosive soils and steep slopes (e.g., in excess of 25%) could lead to serious erosion problems at 

those locations. 

 Under Alternative 1, impacts on soil and geologic resources could occur wherever 

individual projects are located within the 2,017,741 acres identified as available for application 

for leasing. Under this alternative, Wyoming would have the most land (1,000,574 acres) and 

Colorado the least (346,609 acres) where commercial oil shale development could affect soil and 

geologic resources. 

6.1.1.3 Paleontological Resources 

 Under Alternative 1, a total of 2,017,741 acres of public land available for application 

for commercial oil shale leasing would remain designated as available (Section 2.3.2). 

Paleontological resources within these areas could be adversely affected if leasing and 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-8 

FIGURE 6.1.1-1 Lands Available for Application for Oil Shale Leasing under Alternative 1 in 

Relation to Wild Horse and Burro Herd Management Areas 

 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-9 

subsequent commercial development occur. Of the acreage designated under Alternative 1, a 

total of 1,784,765 acres (about 88% of the 2,017,741 acres that would be available under 

Alternative 1) has been identified as overlying geologic formations having a high potential to 

contain important paleontological resources (Murphey and Daitch 2007). Approximately 

335,113 of these acres are in the Piceance Basin; 592,620 acres are in the Uinta Basin; and 

857,032 acres are in the Green River and Washakie Basins. 

 Impacts from oil shale development 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. However, oil shale 

development may result in beneficial discoveries that would not otherwise have been made. 

These impacts and the application of mitigation measures to reduce or eliminate them are 

discussed in Section 4.4. 

6.1.1.4 Water Resources 

 Under Alternative 1, a total of 2,017,741 acres of public land available for application for 

commercial oil shale leasing would remain designated as available (Section 2.3.2). While both 

surface and groundwater resources could be affected by future commercial oil shale development 

on these lands, the amount of water that may be required and the potential mix required among 

surface water, groundwater, and treated process water is currently unknown. 

 The inability to predict specific locations for potential future commercial development 

and the lack of information regarding the type of technology that might be employed make it 

difficult to predict the specific impacts on water resources that could occur with commercial 

development. Quantification of such impacts would depend on the specific location of the lease 

area being developed, as well as the design of the project and associated infrastructure. Future 

climate conditions may also affect streamflows and create another uncertainty in water 

availability. 

 Section 4.5 of this PEIS provides a generic description of the potential impacts on water 

resources. These impacts could occur anywhere within the 2,017,741 acres available for 

application for leasing in this alternative. The following is a summary of these generic impacts: 

• Accidental chemical spills or product spills and/or leakage that could 

potentially contaminate surface water and/or groundwater; 

• Degradation of surface water quality caused by increased sediment load or 

contaminated runoff from project sites; 

• Surface disturbance that may alter natural drainages by both diverting and 

concentrating natural runoff; 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-10 

• Surface disturbance that becomes a non-point source of sediment and 

dissolved salt to surface water bodies; 

• Withdrawal of water from a surface water body that reduces its flow and 

degrades the water quality of the stream downgradient from the point of the 

withdrawal; 

• Withdrawals of groundwater from a shallow aquifer that produce a cone of 

depression and reduce groundwater discharge to surface water bodies or to the 

springs or seeps that are hydrologically connected to the groundwater; 

• Construction of reservoirs that might alter natural streamflow patterns, alter 

local fisheries, temporarily increase salt loading, cause changes in stream 

profiles downstream, reduce natural sediment transport mechanisms, and 

increase evapotranspiration losses; 

• Discharged water from a project site that could have a lower water quality 

than the intake water that is brought to a site; 

• Spent shale piles and mine tailings that might be sources of salt, metal, and 

hydrocarbon contamination for both surface and groundwater; 

• Dewatering operations of a mine, or dewatering through wells that penetrate 

multiple aquifers, that could reduce groundwater discharge to seeps, springs, 

or surface water bodies if the surface water and the groundwater are 

connected; 

• Degradation of groundwater quality resulting from the injection of lower 

quality water, from contributions of residual hydrocarbons or chemicals from 

retorted zones after recovery operations have ceased, and from spent shales 

replaced in either surface or underground mines; and 

• Reduction or loss of flow in domestic water wells from dewatering operations 

or from production of water for industrial uses. 

 As noted in Section 6.1.1.2, the lands available for application for leasing under 

Alternative 1 include lands that have been identified in BLM land use plans as having high 

potential for erosion due to steep slopes and/or highly erosive soils. Surface water quality could 

be adversely impacted by erosion that could contribute to increases in sediment and salinity loads 

from these and similar lands throughout the area open for application for leasing under this 

alternative. 

 In addition, lands available for application for leasing under Alternative 1 overlap with 

sensitive hydrologic areas identified by the BLM, including about 7,900 acres of identified 

riparian areas and wetlands in Colorado; about 6,100 acres of watershed, floodplains, and other 

sensitive water resources in Utah; and about 31,000 acres of identified floodplains, wetlands, and 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-11 

riparian areas in Wyoming. Disturbance of these areas could occur either by direct manipulation 

or through indirect effects, including increased sedimentation and runoff of contaminated water 

from project sites. 

 The total stream miles within the four oil shale basins is approximately 753 mi. 

Alternative 1 contains approximately 674 mi of these perennial streams that could be affected 

either directly or indirectly by commercial oil shale development (see Table 6.1.1-3). 

6.1.1.5 Air Quality 

 Under Alternative 1, a total of 2,017,741 acres of public land would be available within 

Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming for application for leasing for commercial development of oil 

shale (Section 2.3.2). The designation of potential leasing areas would not have a direct effect 

on air quality. Of the acreage designated under Alternative 1, about 346,609 acres are in the 

Piceance Basin, Colorado; 670,558 acres in the Uinta Basin, Utah; and 1,000,574 acres in the 

Green River and Washakie Basins, Wyoming. Air resources in the three states would not be 

affected by this action. However, air resources in and around these 2,017,741 acres could be 

affected by potential future commercial development of oil shale. Under Alternative 1, local, 

short-term air quality impacts could be incurred as a result of (1) PM releases (fugitive dust, 

diesel exhaust) during construction activities, such as site clearing and grading in preparation 

for facility construction, and (2) exhaust emissions (NOx, CO, PM, VOC, and SO2) from 

construction equipment and vehicles (see Section 4.6). These potential impacts would be of short 

duration and largely limited to specific project locations and the immediate surrounding area. 

Similar short-term impacts could also occur in other areas where electric transmission lines, oil 

pipelines, transportation ROWs, and other infrastructure would be located and developed. 

 Similar but longer term impacts on local air quality could occur during normal project 

operations, such as mining and processing of the oil shale. Processing activities could also result 

in regional impacts on air quality and air quality-related values (AQRVs), such as visibility and 

acid deposition, which could extend beyond the boundaries of the lease areas in each state. These 

regional impacts would be associated with operational releases of NOx, CO, PM, and other 

pollutants (VOCs and SO2) during oil shale excavation and processing (see Section 4.6). In 

addition, ozone precursors of NOx and VOC from oil shale development could exacerbate 

wintertime high-ozone occurrences already prevalent in the study area. Operational releases of 

certain HAPs (e.g., benzene, toluene, formaldehyde, and diesel PM) could also affect on-site 

workers and nearby residences (if any are present); however, these impacts would be localized to 

the immediate project location and subject to further analyses prior to implementation. 

 During all phases of oil shale development, GHG emissions of primarily CO2 and lesser 

amounts of CH4 and N2O from combustion sources could contribute to climate change to some 

extent. 

 If development of oil shale requires expansion of capacity of existing electric power 

plants, or the construction and operation of new electric power plants off-lease, those could also 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-12 

TABLE 6.1.1-3 Perennial Streams Occurring within the Lease Areas with a 2-mi Buffer 

State 

Alternative 1 

 

Alternative 2 

 

Alternative 3 

 

Alternative 4 

Number 

of 

Perennial 

Streams 

Length 

of 

Streams 

(mi) 

 

Number 

of 

Perennial 

Streams 

Length 

of 

Streams 

(mi) 

 

Number 

of 

Perennial 

Streams 

Length 

of 

Streams 

(mi) 

 

Number 

of 

Perennial 

Streams 

Length 

of 

Streams 

(mi) 

 

Colorado 17 184 14 97 6 23 17 183 

Utah 14 262 13 253 1 5 14 261 

Wyoming 18 228 12 91 0 0 18 217 

 

Total 49 674 39 441 7 28 49 661

have longer term impacts on regional air quality and AQRVs. Table 6.1.6-3 presents a summary 

of the emissions from coal-fired electric power plants. 

6.1.1.6 Noise 

 Under Alternative 1, a total of 2,017,741 acres of public land would be available within 

Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming for application for leasing for commercial development of oil 

shale. Ambient noise levels in these areas would not be affected by the identification of these 

lands for application for leasing. However, ambient noise levels could be affected by the future 

commercial development of oil shale. Under Alternative 1, local, short-term changes in ambient 

noise levels could occur during the construction, operation, and reclamation of oil shale projects 

(see Section 4.7.1). Project-related increases in noise levels could disturb or displace wildlife 

and recreational users in nearby areas. Impacts on wildlife and recreational users are discussed 

in Sections 4.8.1.3 and 4.2.1.4, respectively. 

 Noise levels could be affected as a result of the operation of construction equipment 

(graders, excavators, and haul trucks) and as a result of any blasting activities. Increases in 

ambient noise levels during operations would be associated with mining and oil shale-processing 

activities and would be more long term than construction-related noise. These types of impacts 

would be largely limited to specific project locations and the immediate surrounding area. 

Similar short- and long-term impacts could also occur in other areas where electric transmission 

lines, oil pipelines, transportation ROWs, and other infrastructure would be located, developed, 

and operated. For example, ambient noise levels in the immediate vicinity could also be 

increased by any pipeline pump stations and by project-related vehicular traffic at the project site 

and related locations such as access roads to the site. 

 Construction-related noise levels could exceed EPA guidelines and/or Colorado 

regulations (there are currently no state guidelines/regulations for Utah or Wyoming). Similarly, 

operational noise associated with mining and retort activities may, in the absence of mitigation, 

exceed EPA guidelines and/or Colorado regulations at some project locations. Noise generated 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-13 

as a result of project-related vehicular traffic is not expected to exceed EPA guideline and/or 

Colorado regulation levels except for short durations and very close to road or high traffic areas. 

 In the absence of lease- and project-specific information, it is not possible at the level of 

this PEIS to identify the duration and magnitude of any project-related changes in noise levels. 

Changes in ambient noise levels from project development could occur wherever a project is 

located within the 2,017,741 acres identified for application for leasing under Alternative 1. 

6.1.1.7 Ecological Resources 

 Under Alternative 1, a total of 2,017,741 acres of public land within Colorado, Utah, and 

Wyoming would remain available for application for leasing for commercial development of oil 

shale. These lands support a wide variety of biota and their habitats (Section 3.7). Identification 

of land as available for application for leasing does not have direct effects on ecological 

resources. However, ecological resources in and around these lands could be affected by the 

future commercial development of oil shale. The following sections describe the potential 

impacts on ecological resources that may result from commercial oil shale development within 

the areas identified as available for application for commercial leasing under Alternative 1. 

 The magnitude of potential impacts on specific ecological resources that could occur 

from commercial oil shale development would depend on the specific location of the commercial 

oil shale projects as well as on the specific project design. 

6.1.1.7.1 Aquatic Resources. Under Alternative 1, a total of 2,017,741 acres of land in 

Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming would remain available for application for leasing for commercial 

development of oil shale. Identification of land as available for application for leasing does not 

have direct effects on aquatic resources. Impacts could result, however, from post-lease 

construction and operation as described in Section 4.8.1.1. These impacts would be considered in 

project-specific NEPA analyses that would be conducted at the commercial lease and 

development phases of projects. 

 Potential impacts on aquatic resources from oil shale development could result primarily 

from increased turbidity and sedimentation, changes to water table levels, degradation of surface 

water quality (e.g., alteration of water temperature, salinity, and nutrient levels), release of toxic 

substances to surface water, and increased public access to aquatic habitats as described in 

Section 4.8.1.1. As described in Section 4.8.1.1, there is a potential for development and 

production activities in upland areas to affect surface water and groundwater beyond the area 

where surface disturbance or water withdrawals are occurring. Consequently, the analysis here 

considers the potential for impacts on waterways up to 2 mi beyond the boundary of the lands 

that would be allocated for potential leasing under this alternative. However, as project 

development activities become more distant from waterways, the potential for negative effects 

on aquatic resources could be reduced. For the analysis of potential impacts on each of the 

alternatives considered in this PEIS, it was assumed that the potential for negative impacts on 

aquatic resources increases as the area potentially affected (i.e., the area that would be 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-14 

considered for leasing) increases and as the number and extent of waterways within a 2-mi zone 

surrounding those areas increase. 

 Under Alternative 1, these are 33 perennial streams and about 251 mi of perennial stream 

habitat within the Piceance, Uinta, Green River, and Washakie Basins that are directly overlain 

by areas potentially available for oil shale development. When an additional 2-mi zone 

surrounding these areas is considered, there are 49 perennial streams and about 674 mi of 

perennial stream habitat that could be affected by future development activities (Table 6.1.1-4). 

The development of commercial oil shale projects in the areas identified under Alternative 1 

could affect aquatic biota and their habitats during project construction and operations, thereby 

resulting in short- and/or long-term changes (disturbance or loss) in the abundance and 

distribution of affected biota and their habitats. As described in Section 4.1.1.1, impacts from 

water quality degradation and water depletions could affect not only resources in areas within or 

immediately adjacent to leased areas, but also resources in areas farther downstream in affected 

watersheds. The nature and magnitude of impacts, as well as the specific resources affected, 

would depend on the location of the areas where project construction and facilities occur, the 

aquatic resources present in those areas, and the mitigation measures implemented. 

 The types of aquatic habitats and organisms that could be impacted by future 

development in the vicinity of the Piceance, Uinta, Green River, and Washakie Basins are 

described in Section 3.7.1, and some of these aquatic habitats are known or likely to contain 

federally listed endangered fish, state-listed or BLM-designated sensitive species (Section 3.7.4), 

and other native fish and invertebrate species that could be negatively affected by development. 

Specific impacts would depend greatly upon the locations and methods of extraction used by 

future projects. Project-specific NEPA analyses would be conducted prior to any future leasing 

decisions to evaluate potential impacts in greater detail. 

6.1.1.7.2 Plant Communities and Habitats. Under Alternative 1, a total of 

2,017,741 acres of land in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming would remain identified as available 

for application for leasing for commercial development of oil shale. There would be no impacts 

on plant communities or habitat associated with this identification. Impacts could result, 

however, from post-lease construction and operation as described in Section 4.8.1.2. These 

impacts would be considered in project-specific NEPA analyses that would be conducted at the 

commercial lease and development phases of projects. 

 Areas identified as available for application for commercial leasing under Alternative 1 

support a wide variety of plant communities and habitats (see Section 3.7.2). These areas include 

approximately 167,800 acres currently identified in BLM land use plans for the protection of 

wetlands, riparian habitats, floodplains, special status and sensitive plant species, and remnant 

vegetation associations. Direct impacts on these resources would not occur in these areas. Direct 

and indirect impacts could be incurred in the remaining areas during project construction and 

operation, extending over a period of several decades (especially within facility and 

infrastructure footprints) (see Section 4.8.1.2). Some impacts (e.g., habitat loss) could continue 

beyond the termination of shale oil production. 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-15 

TABLE 6.1.1-4 Streams and Approximate Miles of Each Stream in the Geologically Prospective 

Areas of the Oil Shale Basins and in the Vicinitya of Areas To Be Considered for Leasing under 

Each of the Alternatives 

Stream 

Length of Stream (mi) 

Geologically 

Prospective 

Area Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 

 

Colorado–Piceance Oil Shale 

Basin 

 

Black Sulphur Creek 18.8 18.2 9.6 3.9 18.2 

Clear Creek 11.3 3.8 –b – 3.8

Corral Gulch 10.8 10.8 4.1 5.0 10.8

Dry Fork Piceance Creek 10.1 10.2 8.3 – 10.2

East Fork Parachute Creek 12.3 6.3 – – 6.1

East Willow Creek 6.5 6.5 3.6 – 6.5

Fawn Creek 7.0 7.0 4.3 2.2 7.0

Hunter Creek 8.3 8.3 6.4 4.5 8.3

Parachute Creek 6.8 5.8 – – 5.8

Piceance Creek 37.7 37.3 24.5 – 37.3

Ryan Gulch 15.0 15.0 6.8 7.0 15.0

West Fawn Creek 6.9 6.9 1.6 – 6.9

West Fork Parachute Creek 11.5 11.5 2.4 – 11.5

West Fork Spring Creek 5.6 5.6 – – 5.6

West Hunter Creek 7.2 7.2 5.2 – 7.2

Willow Creek 8.3 8.3 6.3 – 8.3

Yellow Creek 14.9 14.9 13.8 0.4 14.9

Total 199.1 183.6 96.8 22.9 183.4 

 

Utah–Uinta Oil Shale Basin 

Asphalt Wash 5.2 5.2 5.2 – 5.2 

Bitter Creek 29.4 29.4 28.8 – 29.4 

Center Fork 13.9 13.9 13.9 – 13.9 

Duchesne River 2.4 2.2 1.8 – 2.2

Green River 48.9 48.9 43.2 – 48.7

Nine Mile Creek 3.6 3.6 – – 3.3

Pariette Draw 9.5 9.5 9.1 – 9.5

Petes Wash 17.6 17.6 15.8 – 17.6

Sand Wash 24.7 24.7 19.7 – 24.7

Sweetwater Canyon 9.5 9.5 5.7 – 9.5

Tabyago Canyon 19.0 19.0 8.6 – 19.0

Wells Draw 3.5 3.5 3.1 – 3.5

White River 63.5 63.5 63.5 5.2 63.5

Willow Creek 11.1 11.1 34.6 – 11.1

Total 261.8 261.7 252.9 5.2 261.1

 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-16 

TABLE 6.1.1-4 (Cont.) 

Stream 

Length of Stream (mi) 

Geologically 

Prospective 

Area Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 

 

Wyoming–Green River Oil 

Shale Basin 

Big Sandy River 37.6 31.6 7.5 – 31.6 

Bitter Creek 9.3 9.0 4.3 – 9.0 

Blacks Fork 49.0 18.4 9.4 – 18.4 

Bone Draw 3.6 3.6 – – 3.6 

Currant Creek 14.7 14.7 – – 9.6 

Dry Muddy Creek 3.1 3.1 1.5 – 3.1 

Green River 63.7 42.0 21.1 – 42.0 

Hams Fork 9.9 9.9 – – 9.9 

Henrys Fork 9.0 9.0 8.9 – 9.0 

Killpecker Creek 2.9 – – – 

Little Bitter Creek 1.9 1.8 – – 1.8 

Little Sandy River 8.1 8.1 7.2 – 8.1 

Pacific Creek 4.2 3.7 2.3 – 3.7 

Sage Creek 15.2 15.2 – – 9.0 

Simpson Gulch 19.9 19.9 4.8 – 19.9 

Slate Creek 0.7 – – – 

Total 252.8 190.1 67.1 – 178.7 

 

Wyoming–Washakie Oil 

Shale Basin 

Alkali Creek 20.2 20.2 16.1 – 20.2 

Bitter Creek 3.2 3.2 2.7 – 3.2 

Canyon Creek 3.6 3.6 – – 3.6 

Vermillion Creek 11.6 11.6 5.0 – 11.6 

Total 38.7 38.6 23.8 – 38.6 

 

All Basins Combined 752.4 673.8 440.6 28.1 661.8 

a Stream lengths for alternatives include portions of streams within each potential allocation area and a 2-mi 

zone surrounding the potential allocation area. 

b A dash indicates the stream does not fall within a potential allocation area or within a 2-mi buffer 

surrounding the potential allocation area under this alternative. 

 Direct impacts could include the destruction of vegetation and habitat during land 

clearing on the lease site and where ancillary facilities such as access roads, pipelines, 

transmission lines, employer-provided housing, and new power plants would be located. Soils 

disturbed during construction would be susceptible to the introduction and establishment of 

non-native invasive species, which in turn could greatly reduce the success of establishment of 

native plant communities during reclamation of project areas and create a source of future 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-17 

colonization and subsequent degradation of adjacent undisturbed areas. Plant communities and 

habitats could also be adversely affected by changes in water quality or availability, resulting in 

plant mortality or reduced growth, with subsequent changes in community composition and 

structure, and declines in habitat quality. Indirect impacts on terrestrial and wetland habitats on 

or off the project site could result from land clearing and exposed soil; soil compaction; and 

changes in topography, surface drainage, and infiltration characteristics. These impacts could 

lead to changes in the abundance and distribution of plant species and changes in community 

structure, as well the introduction or spread of invasive species. 

 Affected plant communities and habitats could incur short- and/or long-term changes in 

species composition, abundance, and distribution. Although many impacts would be local 

(occurring within construction and operation footprints and in the immediate surrounding area), 

the introduction of invasive species could affect much larger areas. The nature and magnitude of 

these impacts, as well as the communities or habitats affected, would depend on the location of 

the areas where project construction and facilities occur, the plant communities and habitats 

present in those areas, and the mitigation measures implemented to address impacts. 

 The area available for application for leasing under Alternative 1 includes locations that 

support oil shale endemic plant species. Local populations of oil shale endemics, which typically 

occur as small scattered populations on a limited number of sites, could be reduced or lost as a 

result of oil shale development activities. Establishment and long-term survival of these species 

on reclaimed land may be difficult. 

 The lands available under this alternative include eight ACECs: The Duck Creek, Ryan 

Gulch, and Dudley Bluffs ACECs, as well as a small portion of the East Fork Parachute Creek 

ACEC—all located in the Piceance Basin; portions of the Pariette Wetlands and Lower Green 

River ACECs—both located in the Uinta Basin; and portions of the Special Status Plant Species 

and Greater Red Creek ACECs—both located in the Green River Basin. Each of these ACECs 

includes rare plant species and/or rare or important plant communities. Direct and indirect 

impacts on these sensitive species and communities could occur. However, stipulations currently 

identified in BLM land use plans that address sensitive resources apply to many of these ACECs. 

None of the three rare plant communities in the East Fork Parachute Creek ACEC (montane 

riparian forest, boxelder riparian forest, and western slope grassland) or known locations of 

three rare plants (hanging garden sullivantia, Utah fescue, and southwest stickleaf) are located in 

the Alternative 1 footprint. The nearest of these, the boxelder riparian forest, is located upstream 

along East Fork Parachute Creek approximately 1.5 mi from the Alternative 1 footprint. No 

direct impacts on these plant communities would be expected; however, indirect impacts, such as 

from fugitive dust, could occur. 

 Two ACECs that include rare plant species and/or rare or important plant communities 

are located adjacent to the Alternative 1 footprint: Trapper Creek/Northwater Creek ACEC, 

adjacent to the Piceance Basin, and Nine Mile Canyon ACEC, adjacent to the Uinta Basin. 

Twelve ACECs with rare plant species and/or rare or important plant communities are located 

near (within 5 mi) the Alternative 1 footprint: Upper Greasewood Creek (1 mi), Lower 

Greasewood Creek (3.1 mi), Yanks Gulch (3.6 mi), South Cathedral Bluffs (3.1 mi), East 

Douglas Creek (2.5 mi), Magpie Gulch (3.4 mi), Deer Gulch (0.5 mi), and White River Riparian 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-18 

(0.6 mi), all near the Piceance Basin; Raven Ridge (2.2 mi), Oil Spring Mountain (4.4 mi), and 

White River Riparian (0.6 mi), all near the Uinta Basin; and Special Status Plant Species (0.9 mi) 

and Hells Canyon (2.9 mi), both near the Washakie Basin. Indirect impacts on the sensitive 

species or communities within these ACECs could occur. Impacts would generally decrease with 

increasing distance. 

6.1.1.7.3 Wildlife. Under Alternative 1, a total of 2,017,741 acres of lands in Colorado, 

Utah, and Wyoming would remain identified as available for application for leasing for 

commercial development of oil shale. While no impacts on wildlife species associated with lands 

available for commercial leasing are expected, impacts could result from post-lease construction 

and operations as described in Section 4.8.1.3. These impacts would be considered in greater 

detail in project-specific NEPA analyses that would be conducted at the commercial lease and 

development phases of projects. The areas available for application for leasing support a diverse 

array of wildlife and habitats (see Section 3.7.3). Various stipulations are included in the BLM 

RMPs that provide protection for different wildlife species. These include lands designated as 

(1) NSO (where the BLM does not allow long-term ground-disturbing activities [i.e., with an 

impact that would last longer than 2 years]), (2) CSU (where the BLM places special restrictions, 

including shifting a ground-disturbing activity by more than 200 m from the proposed location to 

another location to protect a specific resource such as a raptor nest), and (3) subject to TL (where 

the BLM may allow specified activities but not during certain sensitive seasons, such as when 

raptors are nesting or when big game are on their winter ranges). Table 6.1.1-5 presents the 

acreage of habitat protected by these stipulations in areas available for application for oil shale 

leasing in Alternative 1. In most instances, the stipulations are for TLs. 

 Areas identified in Alternative 1 as available for application for commercial leasing 

overlap areas identified by state natural resource agencies as seasonal habitat for big game 

species. These areas include mule deer and elk winter and summer ranges (Figures 6.1.1-2 and 

6.1.1-3, respectively). Table 6.1.1-6 presents the acreage of habitat, identified by the states, that 

occurs in the Alternative 1 areas available for application for leasing and that could be impacted 

by potential future commercial oil shale development in these areas. 

 Impacts on wildlife from commercial oil shale projects (see Section 4.8.1.3) could occur 

in a number of ways and could be related to (1) habitat loss, alteration, or fragmentation; 

(2) disturbance and displacement of biota; (3) mortality; (4) exposure to hazardous materials; and 

(5) increase in human access. These impacts can result in changes in species distribution and 

abundance; habitat use; changes in behavior; collisions with structures or vehicles; changes in 

predator populations; and chronic or acute toxicity from hydrocarbons, herbicides, or other 

contaminant exposures. 

 Wildlife could also be affected by human activities not directly associated with the oil 

shale project or its workforce but instead associated with the potentially increased human access 

to BLM-administered lands that had previously received little use. The construction of new 

access roads or improvements to old access roads may lead to increased human access into the 

area. Potential impacts associated with increased access include the disturbance of wildlife from 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-19 

TABLE 6.1.1-5 Wildlife Habitat Protected by Stipulations in BLM RMPs within the 

Alternative 1 Oil Shale Lease Areas 

 

Area of Habitat (acres) 

Habitat Description Coloradoa Utaha Wyominga

 

Birds 

Raptor nesting areas 27,918 (29,349)b –c 78,174 (132,850) 

Raptor nesting and fledging habitat 59 (61) – – 

Raptor habitat/nesting areas – – – 

Raptor concentration areas – – 10,043 (11,912) 

 

Big Game 

Big game severe winter range 89,310 (90,088) – – 

Big game winter range 24 (25) – – 

Big game 30 (31) – – 

Deer and elk summer range 163,100 (165,409) – – 

Pronghorn crucial winter range – – 269,453 (566,031) 

Elk crucial winter range – 65,834 (67,854) 71,157 (80,184) 

Elk calving – 1,190 (1,190) 12,303 (19,389) 

Mule deer crucial winter range – 110,527 (112,993) 144 (2,922) 

Mule deer winter range – – 83,237 (106,090) 

Mule deer fawning area – 29,334 (40,789) – 

Mule deer migration corridor – 5,021 (5,038) – 

Moose winter range – – 11 (11) 

Pronghorn crucial winter range – – 10,600 (20,215) 

Pronghorn winter range – – 241,673 (455,557) 

 

Other 

Wildlife seclusion above the rim 81 (3,282) – – 

Wildlife seclusion areas 11 (11) – – 

a Acreage may be overestimated because of unknown degree of habitat overlap among species or habitat 

types for a species. For these reasons, columns should not be totaled. 

b Numbers in parentheses are the wildlife habitat acreage identified for protection within the most 

geologically prospective lands. 

c A dash indicates not identified for protection, or identified otherwise for protection within the state. 

human activities, including an increase in legal and illegal take and an increase of invasive 

vegetation; an increase in the incidence of fires; and increased runoff that could adversely affect 

riparian or other wetland areas that are important to wildlife. 

 The potential for impacts on wildlife and their habitats from commercial oil shale 

development is directly related to the amount of land disturbance that would occur with a 

commercial project (including its ancillary facilities, such as power plants and utility and 

pipeline ROWs), the duration and timing of construction and operation periods, and the habitat 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-20 

FIGURE 6.1.1-2 Lands Available for Application for Oil Shale Leasing under Alternative 1 in 

Relation to the Summer and Winter Ranges of the Mule Deer
Final OSTS PEIS 6-21 

FIGURE 6.1.1-3 Lands Available for Application for Oil Shale Leasing under Alternative 1 in 

Relation to the Summer and Winter Ranges of the Elk 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-22 

TABLE 6.1.1-6 State-Identified Elk and Mule Deer Habitat 

Present in the Alternative 1 Oil Shale Lease Areas 

Area of Habitat (acres) 

Habitat Description Colorado Utah Wyoming Total 

 

Mule Deer 

Winter habitat 245,634 252,727 362,798 861,159 

Summer habitat 172,773 0 NAa 172,773 

 

Elk 

Winter habitat 320,262 267,877 262,303 850,442 

Summer habitat 172,542 0 NA 172,542 

a NA = data not available. 

affected by development (i.e., the location of the project). Indirect effects, such as impacts 

on wildlife habitat resulting from the erosion of disturbed land surfaces, water depletions, 

contamination, and disturbance and harassment, are also considered. The magnitude of these 

impacts is also considered to be proportional to the amount of land disturbance. 

6.1.1.7.4 Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species. Under Alternative 1, a total 

of 2,017,741 acres of land in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming would be available for application 

for leasing for commercial development of oil shale. There would be no impacts on threatened 

and endangered species associated with this identification of lands as available. Impacts could 

result, however, from post-lease construction and operation as described in Section 4.8.1.4. 

These impacts would be considered in greater detail in project-specific NEPA analyses that 

would be conducted at the commercial lease and development phases of projects. In addition, the 

BLM would require all projects to comply with ESA regulations and those policies provided 

under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. 

 Various stipulations are included in the BLM RMPs that provide protection for various 

threatened, endangered, and sensitive species. These include lands designated as (1) NSO (where 

the BLM does not allow long-term ground-disturbing activities, i.e., with an impact that would 

last longer than 2 years), (2) CSU (where the BLM places special restrictions, including shifting 

a ground-disturbing activity by more than 200 m from the proposed location to another location 

to protect a specific resource such as sage-grouse leks), and (3) TL (where the BLM may allow 

specified activities, but not during certain sensitive seasons such as sage-grouse brooding 

seasons). Table 6.1.1-7 identifies the amount of habitats protected by these stipulations in areas 

available for application for oil shale leasing in Alternative 1. In most instances, the stipulations 

for these species are TLs. 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-23 

TABLE 6.1.1-7 Habitat for Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species Protected by 

Stipulations in BLM RMPs within the Alternative 1 Oil Shale Lease Areas 

Area of Habitat (acres) 

Habitat Description Coloradoa Utaha Wyominga

 

Plants 

Habitat for BLM special status plants 45,986 (46,680)b –c 985 (985) 

 

Birds 

Bald eagle habitat 1,462 (1,463) 25,025 (36,920) – 

Habitat for listed, proposed, or candidate 

threatened or endangered and BLMdesignated sensitive raptors other than 

bald eagle 

 2,100 (2,100) – – 

Sage-grouse habitat 43,585 (43,806) 61,987 (62,068) 266,775 (764,055) 

 

Mammals 

Black-footed ferret habitat – 38,041 (38,046) – 

a Acreage may be overestimated because of unknown degree of habitat overlap among species or habitat 

types for a species. For these reasons, columns should not be totaled. 

b Numbers in parentheses are the acreages identified for protection within the most geologically 

prospective lands. 

c A dash indicates not identified for protection, or identified otherwise for protection within the state. 

 Under Alternative 1, 193 of the 204 federal candidate, BLM-designated sensitive, 

and state-listed species listed in Table 6.1.1-8 and 20 of the 22 federally listed threatened or 

endangered species listed in Table 6.1.1-9 could occur in areas available for application for 

commercial leasing. This determination is based on records of occurrence in project counties of 

Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming, species occurrences from state natural heritage programs,1 and 

the presence of potentially suitable habitat.2 Potential lease areas include about 99 mi of critical 

habitat for Colorado River endangered fishes in Colorado and Utah; designated critical habitat 

for the Mexican spotted owl (Strix occidentalis lucida) also occurs about 5 mi south of potential 

lease areas in Utah (Figure 6.1.1-4). Greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) core or 

 

1 Spatial data were obtained from state natural heritage program or conservation offices that represented USGS 

quad-level or township range-level occurrences of species (CNHP 2011; UDWR 2011; WYNDD 2011a). A 

spatial analysis was performed to determine the distance of recorded occurrences of each species to the potential 

lease areas. For species tracked in these state databases, these distance measurements are provided in 

Tables 6.1.1-8 and 6.1.1-9. 

2 Spatial models representing potentially suitable habitat of terrestrial vertebrate wildlife species were obtained 

from USGS (2007) and WYNDD (2011b). For species with an available habitat model, a spatial analysis was 

performed to quantify the amount of potentially suitable habitat within the potential lease areas. This 

quantification is presented in Tables 6.1.1-8 and 6.1.1-9. 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-24 

TABLE 6.1.1-8 Potential Effects of Commercial Oil Shale Development under Alternative 1 on 

BLM-Designated Sensitive Species, Federal Candidates for Listing, State-Listed Species, and State 

Species of Special Concern 

Scientific Name Common Name Statusa

States and Counties 

within the Study Area 

in Which Species 

May Occur Potential for Effectb

 

Plants 

Abies concolor White fir WY-SC WY–Sweetwater Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat and known occurrences are from 

Little Mountain in Sweetwater County, 

Wyoming, approximately 5 mi east of the 

study area. 

 

Achnatherum 

swallenii 

Swallen mountainricegrass WY-SC WY–Lincoln, 

Sublette 

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area. 

 

Amsonia jonesii Jones blue star BLM-S UT–Duchesne, 

Emery, Garfield, 

Grand, San Juan, 

Uintah, Wayne 

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area. 

Quad-level occurrences are within 13 mi 

from the study area in Utah. 

 

Androstephium 

breviflorum 

Purple funnel-lily WY-SC WY–Sweetwater Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area. 

 

Antennaria 

arcuata 

Meadow pussytoes BLM-S; 

WY-SC 

WY–Sublette No impact. Suitable habitat does not 

exist in the study area. Nearest 

occurrences are approximately 30 mi 

from the study area in Wyoming. 

 

Aquilegia 

scopulorum var.

goodrichii 

Utah columbine BLM-S UT–Carbon, 

Duchesne, Emery, 

Grand, Uintah 

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Arabis vivariensis Park rockcress BLM-S UT–Uintah Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Artemisia biennis 

var. diffusa 

Mystery 

wormwood 

BLM-S; 

WY-SC

WY–Sweetwater Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Astragalus 

bisulcatus var.

haydenianus 

Hayden’s 

milkvetch 

WY-SC WY–Sweetwater, 

Uinta

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Astragalus 

calycosus var.

calycosus

King’s milkvetch WY-SC WY–Sweetwater, 

Uinta

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Astragalus 

coltonii var.

moabensis

Moab milkvetch WY-SC WY–Sweetwater, 

Uinta

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-25 

TABLE 6.1.1-8 (Cont.)

Scientific Name Common Name Statusa

States and Counties 

within the Study Area 

in Which Species 

May Occur Potential for Effectb

 

Plants (Cont.) 

Astragalus 

debequaeus 

Debeque milkvetch BLM-S CO–Garfield Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area. 

Quad-level occurrences of this species 

intersect the study area in Colorado. 

 

Astragalus 

detritalis

Debris milkvetch BLM-S CO–Rio Blanco; 

UT–Duchesne, 

Uintah

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area. 

Quad-level occurrences of this species 

intersect the study area in Colorado and 

Utah. 

 

Astragalus 

duchesnensis

Duchesne 

milkvetch

BLM-S CO–Rio Blanco; 

UT–Duchesne, 

Uintah

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area. 

Quad-level occurrences of this species 

intersect the study area in Utah. 

 

Astragalus 

equisolensis 

Horseshoe 

milkvetch 

BLM-S UT–Uintah Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Astragalus 

hamiltonii 

Hamilton’s 

milkvetch 

BLM-S UT–Uintah Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Astragalus 

lentiginosus var.

salinus 

Sodaville milkvetch WY-SC WY–Lincoln, Uinta Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Astragalus 

musiniensis

Ferron milkvetch BLM-S CO–Garfield; 

UT–Emery, Garfield, 

Grand, Wayne

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area. 

Quad-level occurrences are within 22 mi 

from the study area in Utah.

 

Astragalus 

naturitensis

Naturita milkvetch BLM-S CO–Garfield; 

UT–San Juan

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area. 

Quad-level occurrences are within 8 mi 

from the study area in Colorado.

 

Astragalus 

paysonii

Payson’s milkvetch WY-SC WY–Lincoln, 

Sublette

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Astragalus 

proimanthus 

Precocious 

milkvetch 

BLM-S; 

WY-SC

WY–Sweetwater Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area. 

Township range-level occurrences of this 

species intersect the study area in 

Wyoming. 

 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-26 

TABLE 6.1.1-8 (Cont.)

Scientific Name Common Name Statusa

States and Counties 

within the Study Area 

in Which Species 

May Occur Potential for Effectb

 

Plants (Cont.) 

Astragalus 

racemosus var.

treleasei 

Trelease’s 

racemose milkvetch 

BLM-S; 

WY-SC

WY–Sublette, Uinta Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area. 

Township range-level occurrences are 

within 6 mi from the study area in 

Wyoming.

 

Atriplex falcata Sickle saltbush WY-SC WY–Sublette, 

Sweetwater, Uinta

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Atriplex wolfii Wolf’s orache WY-SC WY–Sweetwater Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Boechera 

crandallii 

Crandall’s 

rockcress 

WY-SC WY–Sweetwater Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Boechera selbyi Selby’s rockcress WY-SC WY–Sweetwater Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Bolophyta 

ligulata

Ligulate feverfew BLM-S CO–Rio Blanco Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area. 

Quad-level occurrences of this species 

intersect the study area. 

 

Brickellia 

microphylla var.

scabra

Little-leaved 

brickell-bush 

WY-SC WY–Sweetwater Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the Wyoming study 

area.

 

Ceanothus 

martinii 

Utah mountain lilac WY-SC WY–Lincoln, 

Sweetwater

No impact. This species is not known to 

occur in the vicinity of the Wyoming 

study area. Nearest occurrences are 

approximately 70 mi from the study area 

in Wyoming.

 

Cercocarpus 

ledifolius var.

intricatus

Dwarf mountain 

mahogany

WY-SC WY–Sweetwater Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Chamaechaenactis scaposaFullstem WY-SC WY–Sweetwater Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area. 

 

Chrysothamnus 

greenei 

Greene rabbitbrush WY-SC WY–Sweetwater Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area. 

 

Cirsium aridum Cedar Rim thistle BLM-S; 

WY-SC 

WY–Sublette, 

Sweetwater 

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area. 

Quad-level occurrences of this species 

intersect the study area in Wyoming. 

 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-27 

TABLE 6.1.1-8 (Cont.)

Scientific Name Common Name Statusa

States and Counties 

within the Study Area 

in Which Species 

May Occur Potential for Effectb

 

Plants (Cont.) 

Cirsium ownbeyi Ownbey’s thistle BLM-S; 

WY-SC 

UT–Uintah; 

WY–Sweetwater 

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area. 

Quad-level occurrences of this species 

intersect the study area in Wyoming. 

 

Cirsium 

perplexans 

Adobe thistle BLM-S CO–Garfield Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area. 

Quad-level occurrences are within 5 mi 

from the study area in Colorado. 

 

Cleomella 

palmeriana var. 

goodrichii 

Goodrich cleomella BLM-S UT–Uintah Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Collomia 

grandiflora 

Large-flower 

collomia 

WY-SC WY–Lincoln Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area. 

 

Cryptantha 

barnebyi 

Barneby’s cat’s-eye BLM-S UT–Uintah Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Cryptantha 

caespitosa

Caespitose cat’seyeBLM-S CO–Rio Blanco; 

UT–Carbon, 

Duchesne, Uintah

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area. 

Quad-level occurrences of this species 

intersect the study area in Utah. 

 

Cryptantha 

gracilis

Slender cryptantha WY-SC WY–Sweetwater Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Cryptantha 

grahamii 

Graham’s cat’s-eye BLM-S UT–Uintah Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Cryptantha 

rollinsii

Rollins’ cat’s eye BLM-S; 

WY-SC

CO–Rio Blanco; 

UT–Duchesne, 

San Raphael, Uintah, 

Wayne; 

WY–Sweetwater

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area. 

Quad-level occurrences of this species 

intersect the study area in Colorado and 

Utah. 

 

Cymopterus 

duchesnensis

Uinta Basin springparsleyBLM-S CO–Rio Blanco; 

UT–Duchesne, 

Uintah

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area. 

Quad-level occurrences of this species 

intersect the study area in Utah. 

 

Descurainia 

pinnata var.

paysonii

Payson’s tansy 

mustard

WY-SC WY–Sweetwater Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-28 

TABLE 6.1.1-8 (Cont.)

Scientific Name Common Name Statusa

States and Counties 

within the Study Area 

in Which Species 

May Occur Potential for Effectb

 

Plants (Cont.) 

Descurainia 

torulosa

Wyoming 

tansymustard

BLM-S; 

WY-SC

WY–Sweetwater Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area. 

Township range-level occurrences of this 

species intersect the study area in 

Wyoming. 

 

Downingia laeta Great Basin 

downingia

WY-SC WY–Uinta Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Draba juniperina Uinta draba WY-SC WY–Sweetwater, 

Uinta

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Elymus simplex 

var. luxurians

Long-awned alkali 

wild-rye

WY-SC WY–Sweetwater Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area. 

Township range-level occurrences of this 

species intersect the study area in 

Wyoming. 

 

Ephedra viridis 

var. viridis

Green Mormon tea WY-SC WY–Sweetwater Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Eriastrum 

wilcoxii

Wilcox eriastrum WY-SC WY–Sweetwater Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Erigeron 

compactus var.

consimilis

San Rafael daisy WY-SC WY–Sweetwater Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Eriogonum 

contortum

Grand buckwheat BLM-S CO–Garfield; 

UT–Grand

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area. 

Quad-level occurrences are within 13 mi 

from the study area in Utah.

 

Eriogonum 

corymbosum var.

corymbosum

Crisp-leaf wild 

buckwheat

WY-SC WY–Sweetwater Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Eriogonum 

divaricatum

Divergent wild 

buckwheat

WY-SC WY–Lincoln, 

Sublette, Sweetwater, 

Uinta

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Eriogonum 

ephedroides

Ephedra buckwheat BLM-S CO–Rio Blanco; 

UT–Uintah

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area. 

Quad-level occurrences of this species 

intersect the study area in Utah. 

 

Eriogonum 

hookeri

Hooker wild 

buckwheat

WY-SC WY–Sweetwater Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-29 

TABLE 6.1.1-8 (Cont.)

Scientific Name Common Name Statusa

States and Counties 

within the Study Area 

in Which Species 

May Occur Potential for Effectb

 

Plants (Cont.) 

Frasera 

ackermanae 

Ackerman frasera BLM-S UT–Uintah Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Galium 

coloradoense

Colorado bedstraw WY-SC WY–Sweetwater Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Gentianella 

tortuosa

Utah gentian BLM-S CO–Rio Blanco; 

UT–Duchesne, 

Emery, Garfield, 

Uintah

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area. 

Quad-level occurrences of this species 

intersect the study area in Colorado. 

 

Gilia stenothyrsa Narrow-stem gilia BLM-S CO–Rio Blanco; 

UT–Carbon, 

Duchesne, Emery, 

Uintah

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area. 

Quad-level occurrences of this species 

intersect the study area in Utah. 

 

Glossopetalon 

spinescens var.

meionandrum

Utah greasebush WY-SC WY–Sweetwater Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Hymenoxys 

lapidicola 

Rock hymenoxys BLM-S UT–Uintah Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Lathyrus 

lanszwertii var.

lanszwertii

Nevada sweetpea WY-SC WY–Uinta Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Lepidium huberi Huber’s 

pepperplant 

BLM-S UT–Uintah Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Lepidium 

integrifolium var.

integrifolium

Entire-leaved 

peppergrass

BLM-S; 

WY-SC

WY–Lincoln, Uinta Potential for negative impact. Possible 

occurrence in wetland habitats of 

Wyoming study areas.

 

Lesquerella 

macrocarpa

Large-fruited 

bladderpod

BLM-S; 

WY-SC

WY–Lincoln, 

Sublette, Sweetwater

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area. 

Quad-level occurrences are within 9 mi 

from the study area in Wyoming.

 

Lesquerella 

multiceps

Western 

bladderpod

BLM-S; 

WY-SC

WY–Lincoln Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Lesquerella 

parviflora

Piceance 

bladderpod

BLM-S CO–Garfield, 

Rio Blanco

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area. 

Quad-level occurrences of this species 

intersect the study area in Colorado. 

 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-30 

TABLE 6.1.1-8 (Cont.)

Scientific Name Common Name Statusa

States and Counties 

within the Study Area 

in Which Species 

May Occur Potential for Effectb

 

Plants (Cont.) 

Lesquerella 

parvula

Narrow-leaved 

bladderpod

WY-SC WY–Sweetwater, 

Uinta

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Lesquerella 

prostrata

Prostrate 

bladderpod

WY-SC WY–Lincoln, Uinta Potential for negative impact. Possible 

occurrence in upland habitats of 

Wyoming study areas. Nearest 

occurrences are approximately 16 mi 

from the study area in Wyoming.

 

Listera borealis Northern twayblade BLM-S CO–Garfield; 

UT– Duchesne, 

San Juan; 

WY–Sublette

Potential for negative impact. Possible 

occurrence in upland habitats of 

Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming study 

areas. Nearest occurrences are 

approximately 28 mi from the study area 

in Colorado.

 

Lomatium 

triternatum var.

anomalum

Ternate desertparsleyWY-SC WY–Lincoln Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Mentzelia 

goodrichii 

Goodrich’s 

blazinstar 

BLM-S UT–Duchesne, 

Uintah 

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Mentzelia 

rhizomata

Roan Cliffs 

blazingstar

BLM-S CO–Garfield Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area. 

Quad-level occurrences of this species 

intersect the study area in Colorado. 

 

Minuartia 

nuttallii

Nuttall sandwort BLM-S UT–Duchesne; 

WY–Lincoln, 

Sublette, Sweetwater, 

Uinta

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Monolepis pusilla Red poverty-weed WY-SC WY–Sweetwater Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Opuntia 

polyacantha var.

juniperina

Juniper pricklypearWY-SC WY–Sublette, 

Sweetwater

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Opuntia 

polyacantha var.

rufispina

Rufous-spine 

prickly-pear

WY-SC WY–Lincoln, 

Sweetwater

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Oxytheca 

dendroidea

Tree-like oxytheca WY-SC WY–Sweetwater Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-31 

TABLE 6.1.1-8 (Cont.)

Scientific Name Common Name Statusa

States and Counties 

within the Study Area 

in Which Species 

May Occur Potential for Effectb

 

Plants (Cont.) 

Oxytropis besseyi 

var. obnapiformis

Maybell locoweed WY-SC WY–Sweetwater, 

Uinta

No impact. This species is not known to 

occur in the vicinity of the study area. 

Nearest occurrences are approximately 

80 mi from the study area in Wyoming.

 

Packera crocata Saffron groundsel WY-SC WY–Sweetwater Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Parthenium 

ligulatum

Ligulate feverfew BLM-S CO–Rio Blanco; 

UT–Wayne

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Penstemon 

acaulis var.

acaulis

Stemless 

beardtongue

BLM-S; 

WY-SC

WY–Sweetwater Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area. 

Quad-level occurrences are within 3 mi 

of the study area in Wyoming. 

 

Penstemon 

gibbensii

Gibbens’ 

beardtongue

BLM-S; 

WY-SC

WY–Sweetwater Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area. 

Quad-level occurrences are within 11 mi 

of the study area in Wyoming. 

 

Penstemon 

harringtonii

Harrington 

beardtongue

BLM-S CO–Garfield Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area. 

Quad-level occurrences are within 12 mi 

of the study area in Colorado. 

 

Penstemon 

laricifolius ssp.

exilifolius

White beardtongue WY-SC WY–Sublette Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Penstemon 

scariosus var.

albifluvis

White River 

beardtongue

ESA-C; CO–Rio Blanco; 

UT–Uintah

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area. 

Quad-level occurrences of this species 

intersect the study area in Utah. 

 

Penstemon 

scariosus var.

garrettii

Garrett’s 

beardtongue

WY-SC WY–Sweetwater, 

Uinta

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Phacelia 

argylensis 

Argyle Canyon 

phacelia 

BLM-S UT–Uintah Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Phacelia demissa Intermountain 

phacelia

WY-SC WY–Sweetwater Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Phacelia 

glandulosa var.

deserta

Desert glandular 

phacelia

WY-SC WY–Lincoln, 

Sublette, Sweetwater

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-32 

TABLE 6.1.1-8 (Cont.)

Scientific Name Common Name Statusa

States and Counties 

within the Study Area 

in Which Species 

May Occur Potential for Effectb

 

Plants (Cont.) 

Phacelia incana Western phacelia WY-SC WY–Sweetwater Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Phacelia salina Nelson phacelia WY-SC WY–Lincoln, 

Sublette, Sweetwater, 

Uinta

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Phacelia 

tetramera

Tiny phacelia WY-SC WY–Sweetwater Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Philadelphus 

microphyllus var.

occidentalis

Little-leaf mockorangeWY-SC WY–Sweetwater Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Phlox 

albomarginata

White-margined 

phlox

WY-SC WY–Lincoln Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Phlox pungens Beaver Rim phlox BLM-S; 

WY-SC

WY–Lincoln, 

Sublette

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area. 

Township range-level occurrences of this 

species intersect the study area in 

Wyoming. 

 

Physaria 

condensata

Tufted twinpod BLM-S; 

WY-SC

WY–Lincoln, 

Sublette, Uinta

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area. 

Township range-level occurrences are 

within 7 mi of the study area in 

Wyoming. 

 

Physaria dornii Dorn’s twinpod BLM-S; 

WY-SC

WY–Lincoln, Uinta Potential for negative impact. Possible 

occurrence in upland habitats of 

Wyoming study areas. Nearest 

occurrences are approximately 25 mi 

from the study area in Wyoming.

 

Physocarpus 

alternans

Dwarf ninebark WY-SC WY–Sweetwater Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Populus deltoides 

var. wislizeni

Fremont 

cottonwood

WY-SC WY–Sweetwater Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Potentilla 

multisecta

Deep Creek 

cinquefoil

WY-SC WY–Sweetwater, 

Uinta

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Psilocarphus 

brevissimus

Dwarf woollyheadsWY-SC WY–Sublette Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-33 

TABLE 6.1.1-8 (Cont.)

Scientific Name Common Name Statusa

States and Counties 

within the Study Area 

in Which Species 

May Occur Potential for Effectb

 

Plants (Cont.) 

Ranunculus 

flabellaris

Yellow watercrowfootWY-SC WY–Uinta Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Rorippa calycina Persistent sepal 

yellowcress

BLM-S; 

WY-SC

WY–Sweetwater Potential for negative impact. Quadlevel occurrences of this species intersect 

the study area in Wyoming. 

 

Sambucus 

cerulea

Blue elderberry WY-SC WY–Sweetwater Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Senecio 

spartioides var.

multicapitatus

Many-headed 

broom groundsel

WY-SC WY–Sweetwater Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Silene douglasii Douglas’ campion WY-SC WY–Lincoln Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Thelesperma 

caespitosum

Green River 

greenthread

BLM-S; 

WY-SC

WY–Sweetwater Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area. 

Quad-level occurrences of this species 

intersect the study area in Wyoming. 

 

Thelesperma 

pubescens

Uinta greenthread BLM-S; 

WY-SC

WY–Sweetwater, 

Uinta

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area. 

Quad-level occurrences of this species 

intersect the study area in Wyoming. 

 

Townsendia 

microcephala

Cedar Mountain 

Easter-daisy

BLM-S; 

WY-SC

WY–Sweetwater, 

Uinta

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Townsendia 

strigosa

Strigose EasterdaisyBLM-S UT–Duchesne, 

Uintah

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Yucca sterilis Spanish bayonet BLM-S UT–Uintah Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Invertebrates 

Speyeria nokomis 

nokomis 

Great Basin 

silverspot butterfly 

BLM-S UT–Duchesne, 

Uintah 

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area. 

 

Fish 

Catostomus 

discobolus 

Bluehead sucker BLM-S; 

WY-SC 

CO–Garfield, 

Rio Blanco; 

UT–Carbon, 

Duchesne, Emery, 

Garfield, Grand, 

San Juan, Uintah; 

WY–Lincoln, 

Sublette, Sweetwater, 

Uinta 

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in or near the study 

area. Quad-level occurrences of this 

species intersect the study area in Utah. 

 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-34 

TABLE 6.1.1-8 (Cont.)

Scientific Name Common Name Statusa

States and Counties 

within the Study Area 

in Which Species 

May Occur Potential for Effectb

 

Fish (Cont.) 

Catostomus 

latipinnis 

Flannelmouth 

sucker 

BLM-S; 

WY-SC 

CO–Garfield, 

Rio Blanco; 

UT–Carbon, 

Duchesne, Emery, 

Garfield, Grand, 

San Juan, Uintah; 

Wayne; WY–Lincoln, 

Sublette, Sweetwater, 

Uinta 

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in or near the study 

area. Quad-level occurrences of this 

species intersect the study area in Utah. 

 

Catostomus 

platyrhynchus 

Mountain sucker BLM-S; 

CO-SC 

CO–Garfield, 

Rio Blanco; 

UT–Carbon, 

Duchesne, Emery, 

Grand, Uintah; 

WY–Sweetwater, 

Uinta 

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Gila copei Leatherside chub BLM-S; 

UT-SC; 

WY-SC 

UT–Duchesne, 

Emery, Garfield, 

Wayne; WY–Lincoln, 

Uinta 

No impact. This species is not known to 

occur in the vicinity of any study area. 

Nearest occurrences are approximately 

30 mi from the study area in Utah. 

 

Gila robusta Roundtail chub BLM-S; 

CO-SC; 

WY-SC 

CO–Garfield, 

Rio Blanco; 

UT–Carbon, 

Duchesne, Emery, 

Garfield, Grand, 

San Juan, Uintah, 

Wayne; WY–Lincoln, 

Sublette, Sweetwater, 

Uinta 

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in or near the study 

area. Quad-level occurrences of this 

species intersect the study area in Utah. 

 

Oncorhynchus 

clarkii pleuriticus 

Colorado River 

cutthroat trout 

BLM-S; 

CO-SC; 

WY-SC 

CO–Garfield, 

Rio Blanco; 

UT–Duchesne, 

Garfield, Uintah, 

Wayne; WY–Lincoln, 

Sublette, Sweetwater, 

Uinta 

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in or near the study 

area. Quad-level occurrences of this 

species intersect the study area in 

Colorado and the study area in Utah. 

 

Oncorhynchus 

clarkii utah 

Bonneville 

cutthroat trout 

BLM-S; 

WY-SC 

WY–Lincoln, Uinta Potential for negative impact. Possible 

occurrence in aquatic habitats in or near 

the study areas. Nearest occurrences are 

approximately 18 mi from the study area 

in Utah. 

 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-35 

TABLE 6.1.1-8 (Cont.)

Scientific Name Common Name Statusa

States and Counties 

within the Study Area 

in Which Species 

May Occur Potential for Effectb

 

Amphibians 

Bufo boreas Boreal toad BLM-S; 

CO-E; 

UT-SC; 

WY-SC 

CO–Garfield, 

Rio Blanco; 

UT–-Carbon, 

Duchesne, Emery, 

Garfield, Uintah, 

Wayne; WY–Lincoln, 

Sublette, Uinta 

Potential for negative impact.

Approximately 54,627 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area. Quadlevel occurrences are within 5 mi of the 

study area in Utah. 

 

Rana luteiventris Columbia spotted 

frog 

BLM-S; 

WY-SC 

UT–Utah, Wasatch; 

WY–Lincoln, 

Sublette 

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 114 acres of potentially 

suitable habitat for this species occurs in 

the study area. Nearest occurrences are 

approximately 30 mi from the study area 

in Utah. 

 

Rana pipiens Northern leopard 

frog 

BLM-S; 

CO-SC; 

WY-SC 

CO–Garfield, 

Rio Blanco; 

UT–Carbon, 

Duchesne, Emery, 

Garfield, Grand, 

San Juan, Uintah, 

Wayne; WY–Lincoln, 

Sublette, Sweetwater, 

Uinta 

Potential for negative impact.

Approximately 27,484 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area. Possible 

occurrence in aquatic and wetland 

habitats of Colorado, Utah, and 

Wyoming study areas. Nearest 

occurrences are approximately 20 mi 

from the study area in Colorado. 

 

Spea 

intermontana 

Great basin 

spadefoot 

BLM-S; 

WY-SC 

CO–Garfield, 

Rio Blanco; 

UT–Carbon, 

Duchesne, Emery, 

Garfield, Grand, 

San Juan, Uintah, 

Wayne; WY–Lincoln, 

Sweetwater, Uinta 

Potential for negative impact.

Approximately 1,543,840 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area. Quadlevel occurrences of this species intersect 

the study area in Colorado. 

 

Reptiles 

Charina bottae Northern rubber 

boa 

WY-SC WY–Lincoln, Uinta Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat for the species may occur in the 

study area. 

 

Crotalus 

oreganus 

concolor 

Midget faded 

rattlesnake 

BLM-S; 

CO-SC 

CO–Garfield, 

Rio Blanco; 

WY–Sweetwater 

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 336,446 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area. Quadlevel occurrences of this species intersect 

the study area in Colorado and Wyoming. 

 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-36 

TABLE 6.1.1-8 (Cont.)

Scientific Name Common Name Statusa

States and Counties 

within the Study Area 

in Which Species 

May Occur Potential for Effectb

 

Reptiles (Cont.) 

Gambelia 

wislizenii 

Longnose leopard 

lizard 

BLM-S; 

CO-SC 

CO–Garfield Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat for the species may occur in the 

study area. Quad-level occurrences of 

this species intersect the study area in 

Utah. 

 

Liochlorophis 

vernalis 

Smooth greensnake BLM-S; 

UT-SC

UT–Carbon, 

Duchesne, Grand, 

San Juan, Uintah

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat for the species may occur in the 

study area. Quad-level occurrences of 

this species intersect the study area in 

Utah. 

 

Pituophis 

catenifer 

deserticola 

Great Basin 

gophersnake 

WY-SC WY–Lincoln, 

Sweetwater, Uinta 

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat for the species may occur in the 

study area. 

 

Urosaurus 

ornatus wright 

Northern tree lizard WY-SC WY–Sweetwater, 

Uinta 

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat for the species may occur in the 

study area. 

 

Birds 

Accipiter gentilis Northern goshawk BLM-S; 

WY-SC 

CO–Garfield, 

Rio Blanco; 

UT–Carbon, 

Duchesne, Emery, 

Garfield, Grand, 

San Juan, Uintah, 

Wayne; WY–Lincoln, 

Sublette, Sweetwater, 

Uinta 

Potential for negative impact.

Approximately 1,162,118 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area. Quadlevel occurrences of this species intersect 

the study area in Wyoming and Utah. 

 

Aechmophorus 

clarkii 

Clark’s grebe WY-SC WY–Lincoln Potential for negative impact.

Approximately 1,295 acres of potentially 

suitable habitat for this species occurs in 

the study area.

 

Aegolius funereus Boreal owl WY-SC WY–Lincoln, Uinta No impact. Suitable habitat for the 

species does not occur in the study area 

and it is not known to occur in the 

vicinity of the study area. Nearest 

occurrences are approximately 90 mi 

from the study area in Wyoming.

 

Ammodramus 

bairdii

Baird’s sparrow BLM-S; 

WY-SC

WY–Uinta Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat for the species may occur in the 

study area. Quad-level occurrences of 

this species intersect the study area in 

Wyoming. 

 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-37 

TABLE 6.1.1-8 (Cont.)

Scientific Name Common Name Statusa

States and Counties 

within the Study Area 

in Which Species 

May Occur Potential for Effectb

 

Birds (Cont.) 

Ammodramus 

savannarum

Grasshopper 

sparrow

UT-SC; 

WY-SC

UT–Duchesne, 

Uintah, Utah, 

Wasatch; 

WY–Lincoln, 

Sweetwater, Uinta

Potential for negative impact.

Approximately 993,497 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area.

 

Amphispiza belli Sage sparrow BLM-S WY–Lincoln, 

Sublette, Sweetwater, 

Uinta

Potential for negative impact.

Approximately 1,734,068 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area. Quadlevel occurrences of this species intersect 

the study area in Colorado, Utah, and 

Wyoming. 

 

Aphelocoma 

californica

Western scrub-jay WY-SC WY–Sweetwater Potential for negative impact.

Approximately 907,485 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area.

 

Asio flammeus Short-eared owl BLM-S; 

UT-SC; 

WY-SC

UT–Carbon, 

Duchesne, Emery, 

Grand, Garfield, 

San Juan, Uintah, 

Wayne; WY–Lincoln, 

Sweetwater, Uinta

Potential for negative impact.

Approximately 1,000,670 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area. Quadlevel occurrences of this species intersect 

the study area in Utah. 

 

Athene 

cunicularia

Burrowing owl BLM-S; 

CO-T; 

UT-SC; 

WY-SC

CO–Garfield, 

Rio Blanco; 

UT–Carbon, 

Duchesne, Emery, 

Garfield, Grand, 

San Juan, Uintah, 

Wayne; WY–Lincoln, 

Sublette, Sweetwater, 

Uinta

Potential for negative impact.

Approximately 1,598,781 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area. Quadlevel occurrences of this species intersect 

the study area in Utah and Wyoming. 

 

Baeolophus 

ridgwayi

Juniper titmouse WY-SC WY–Sweetwater Potential for negative impact.

Approximately 649,692 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area.

 

Botaurus 

lentiginosus

American bittern WY-SC WY–Lincoln, 

Sweetwater, Uinta

Potential for negative impact.

Approximately 839,663 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-38 

TABLE 6.1.1-8 (Cont.)

Scientific Name Common Name Statusa

States and Counties 

within the Study Area 

in Which Species 

May Occur Potential for Effectb

 

Birds (Cont.) 

Bucephala 

islandica

Barrow’s 

goldeneye

BLM-S CO–Garfield, 

Rio Blanco

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 140,169 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area. Possible 

occurrence in wetland and aquatic 

habitats of Colorado study areas. Nearest 

occurrences are approximately 30 mi 

from the study area in Colorado.

 

Buteo regalis Ferruginous hawk BLM-S; 

CO-SC; 

UT-SC; 

WY-SC

CO–Garfield, 

Rio Blanco; 

UT–Carbon, 

Duchesne, Emery, 

Garfield, Grand, 

San Juan, Uintah, 

Wayne; WY–Lincoln, 

Sublette, Sweetwater, 

Uinta

Potential for negative impact.

Approximately 1,463,365 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area. Quadlevel occurrences of this species intersect 

the study area in Utah and Wyoming. 

 

Calcarius 

mccownii

McCown’s 

longspur

WY-SC WY–Sweetwater No impact. Suitable habitat for the 

species does not occur in the study area.

 

Centrocercus 

urophasianus

Greater sage-grouse ESA-C; 

BLM-S; 

CO-SC; 

UT-SC; 

WY-SC

CO–Garfield, 

Rio Blanco; 

UT–Carbon, 

Duchesne, Emery, 

Garfield, Grand, 

San Juan, Uintah, 

Wayne; WY–Lincoln, 

Sublette, Sweetwater, 

Uinta

Potential for negative impact.

Approximately 1,383,474 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area. Quadlevel occurrences of this species intersect 

the study area in Utah, Colorado, and 

Wyoming. 

 

Charadrius 

montanus

Mountain plover BLM-S; 

CO-SC; 

UT-SC; 

WY-SC

CO–Rio Blanco; 

WY–Lincoln, 

Sublette, Sweetwater

Potential for negative impact.

Approximately 1,035,926 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area. Quadlevel occurrences of this species intersect 

the study area in Utah and Wyoming. 

 

Chlidonias niger Black tern WY-SC WY-Lincoln, 

Sweetwater, Uinta 

No impact. Suitable habitat for the 

species does not occur in the study area.

 

Coccyzus 

americanus 

occidentalis

Western yellowbilled cuckooESA-C; 

BLM-S; 

WY-SC

CO–Garfield, 

Rio Blanco; 

UT–Duchesne, 

Garfield, Grand, 

San Juan, Uintah, 

Wayne

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat for the species does not occur in 

the study area. Quad-level occurrences of 

this species intersect the study area in 

Utah. 

 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-39 

TABLE 6.1.1-8 (Cont.)

Scientific Name Common Name Statusa

States and Counties 

within the Study Area 

in Which Species 

May Occur Potential for Effectb

 

Birds (Cont.) 

Cygnus 

buccinator

Trumpeter swan WY-SC WY–Lincoln, 

Sublette, Sweetwater

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 217,257 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area. Quadlevel occurrences of this species intersect 

the study area in Wyoming. 

 

Cypseloides niger Black swift BLM-S; 

CO-SC; 

UT-SC

CO–Garfield, 

Rio Blanco; 

UT–Duchesne, 

Uintah

Potential for negative impact.

Approximately 142 acres of potentially 

suitable habitat for this species occurs in 

the study area. Quad-level occurrences 

are within 12 mi of the study area in 

Colorado.

 

Dolichonyx 

oryzivorus

Bobolink BLM-S; 

UT-SC

UT–Carbon, 

Duchesne, Emery, 

Garfield, Grand, 

San Juan, Uintah, 

Wayne

Potential for negative impact.

Approximately 97,669 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area. Quadlevel occurrences of this species intersect 

the study area in Utah. 

 

Egretta thula Snowy egret WY-SC WY–Lincoln, 

Sublette, Sweetwater, 

Uinta 

Potential for negative impact.

Potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area in 

Wyoming. 

 

Falco peregrinus 

anatum

American peregrine 

falcon

BLM-S; 

CO-SC

CO–Garfield, 

Rio Blanco; 

WY–Sublette, 

Sweetwater

Potential for negative impact.

Approximately 1,911,571 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area. Quadlevel occurrences of this species intersect 

the study area in Colorado and Wyoming. 

 

Gavia immer Common loon WY-SC WY–Lincoln, 

Sublette, Sweetwater, 

Uinta

Potential for negative impact.

Approximately 5,665 acres of potentially 

suitable habitat for this species occurs in 

the study area.

 

Glaucidium 

gnoma 

Northern pygmyowl WY-SC WY–Lincoln, Uinta Potential for negative impact.

Potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area in 

Wyoming. 

 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-40 

TABLE 6.1.1-8 (Cont.)

Scientific Name Common Name Statusa

States and Counties 

within the Study Area 

in Which Species 

May Occur Potential for Effectb

 

Birds (Cont.) 

Grus canadensis 

tabida

Greater sandhill 

crane

CO-SC; 

WY-SC

CO–Garfield, 

Rio Blanco; 

WY–Lincoln, 

Sweetwater, Uinta

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 1,116,401 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area. Quadlevel occurrences are within 14 mi of the 

study area in Colorado.

 

Haliaeetus 

leucocephalus

Bald eagle BLM-S; 

CO-T; 

WY-SC

CO–Garfield, 

Rio Blanco; 

UT–Carbon, 

Duchesne, Emery, 

Garfield, Grand, 

San Juan, Uintah, 

Wayne; WY–Lincoln, 

Sublette, Sweetwater, 

Uinta

Potential for negative impact.

Approximately 2,340,562 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area. Quadlevel occurrences of this species intersect 

the study area in Colorado, Utah, and 

Wyoming. 

 

Icterus parisorum Scott’s oriole WY-SC WY–Sweetwater Potential for negative impact.

Approximately 251,915 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area.

 

Lanius 

ludovicianus

Loggerhead shrike WY-SC WY–Lincoln, 

Sublette, Sweetwater, 

Uinta

Potential for negative impact.

Approximately 1,951,382 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area. Quadlevel occurrences of this species intersect 

the study area in Wyoming. 

 

Leucosticte 

atrata 

Black rosy-finch WY-SC WY–Sweetwater, 

Lincoln 

Potential for negative impact. 

Potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area in 

Wyoming.

 

Melanerpes lewis Lewis’s 

woodpecker

BLM-S; 

UT-SC; 

WY-SC

UT–Carbon, 

Duchesne, Emery, 

Garfield, Grand, 

San Juan, Uintah, 

Wayne; WY–Uinta

Potential for negative impact.

Approximately 134,462 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area. Quadlevel occurrences of this species intersect 

the study area in Utah. 

 

Myiarchus 

cinerascens 

Ash-throated 

flycatcher 

WY-SC WY–Lincoln, 

Sweetwater, Uinta 

Potential for negative impact. 

Potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area in 

Wyoming.

 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-41 

TABLE 6.1.1-8 (Cont.)

Scientific Name Common Name Statusa

States and Counties 

within the Study Area 

in Which Species 

May Occur Potential for Effectb

 

Birds (Cont.) 

Numenius 

americanus

Long-billed curlew BLM-S; 

CO-SC; 

UT-SC; 

WY-SC

CO–Garfield, 

Rio Blanco; 

UT–Carbon, 

Duchesne, Emery, 

Garfield, Grand, 

San Juan, Uintah, 

Wayne; WY–Lincoln, 

Sublette, Sweetwater, 

Uinta

Potential for negative impact.

Approximately 1,020,568 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area. Quadlevel occurrences of this species intersect 

the study area in Utah and Wyoming. 

 

Nycticorax 

nycticorax 

Black-crowned 

night-heron 

WY-SC WY–Lincoln, 

Sweetwater, Uinta 

Potential for negative impact. 

Potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area in 

Wyoming.

 

Oreoscoptes 

montanus

Sage thrasher BLM-S; 

WY-SC

WY–Lincoln, 

Sublette, Sweetwater, 

Uinta

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 1,790,019 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area. Quadlevel occurrences of this species intersect 

the study area in Wyoming. 

 

Pelecanus 

erythrorhynchos

American white 

pelican

BLM-S; 

UT-SC

CO–Garfield, 

UT–Carbon, 

Duchesne, Emery, 

Garfield, Grand, 

San Juan, Uintah, 

Wayne

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 999,019 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area. Quadlevel occurrences of this species intersect 

the study area in Utah. 

 

Picoides arcticus Black-backed 

woodpecker

WY-SC WY–Lincoln No impact. Suitable habitat for the 

species does not occur in the study area.

 

Picoides 

tridactylus

Three-toed 

woodpecker

BLM-S; 

UT-SC

UT–Carbon, 

Duchesne, Emery, 

Garfield, Grand, 

San Juan, Uintah, 

Wayne

No impact. Suitable habitat for the 

species does not occur in the study area.

 

Plegadis chihi White-faced ibis BLM-S; 

WY-SC

CO–Garfield, 

Rio Blanco; 

WY–Lincoln, 

Sublette, Sweetwater, 

Uinta

Potential for negative impact.

Approximately 871,105 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area. Quadlevel occurrences of this species intersect 

the study area in Colorado and Wyoming. 

 

Psaltriparus 

minimus

Bushtit WY-SC WY–Sweetwater, 

Uinta

Potential for negative impact.

Approximately 1,244,002 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area. 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-42 

TABLE 6.1.1-8 (Cont.)

Scientific Name Common Name Statusa

States and Counties 

within the Study Area 

in Which Species 

May Occur Potential for Effectb

 

Birds (Cont.) 

Rallus limicola Virginia rail WY-SC WY–Lincoln, 

Sublette, Sweetwater, 

Uinta 

Potential for negative impact. 

Potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area in 

Wyoming.

 

Sitta pygmaea Pygmy nuthatch WY-SC WY–Lincoln, 

Sublette

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 487,888 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area.

 

Sphyrapicus 

thyroideus

Williamson’s 

sapsucker

WY-SC WY–Lincoln, 

Sublette, Sweetwater, 

Uinta

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 15,614 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area.

 

Spizella breweri Brewer’s sparrow BLM-S; 

WY-SC

WY–Lincoln, 

Sublette, Sweetwater, 

Uinta

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 1,681,334 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area. Quadlevel occurrences of this species intersect 

the study area in Wyoming. 

 

Sterna caspia Caspian tern WY-SC WY–Lincoln Potential for negative impact.

Approximately 4,868 acres of potentially 

suitable habitat for this species occurs in 

the study area.

 

Sterna forsteri Forster’s tern WY-SC WY–Lincoln Potential for negative impact.

Approximately 292,166 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area.

 

Tympanuchus 

phasianellus 

columbianus

Columbian sharptailed grouseBLM-S; 

CO-SC

CO–Garfield, 

Rio Blanco

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat for the species may occur in the 

study area. Quad-level occurrences of 

this species intersect the study area in 

Colorado. 

 

Mammals 

Antrozous 

pallidus

Pallid bat WY-SC WY–Sweetwater Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 1,005,922 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area.

 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-43 

TABLE 6.1.1-8 (Cont.)

Scientific Name Common Name Statusa

States and Counties 

within the Study Area 

in Which Species 

May Occur Potential for Effectb

 

Mammals (Cont.) 

Brachylagus 

idahoensis 

Pygmy rabbit BLM-S; 

UT-SC; 

WY-SC 

UT–Garfield, Wayne; 

WY–Lincoln, 

Sublette, Sweetwater, 

Uinta 

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 994,977 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area. Quadlevel occurrences of this species intersect 

the study area in Wyoming. 

 

Corynorhinus 

townsendii 

pallescens

Townsend’s bigeared batBLM-S; 

CO-SC; 

UT-SC; 

WY-SC

CO–Garfield, 

Rio Blanco; 

UT–Carbon, 

Duchesne, Emery, 

Garfield, Grand, 

San Juan, Uintah, 

Wayne; 

WY–Sweetwater

Potential for negative impact.

Approximately 971,264 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area. Quadlevel occurrences of this species intersect 

the study area in Utah. 

 

Cynomys 

leucurus

White-tailed prairie 

dog

BLM-S; 

UT-SC; 

WY-SC

UT–Carbon, 

Duchesne, Emery, 

Grand, Uintah; 

WY–Lincoln, 

Sublette, Sweetwater, 

Uinta

Potential for negative impact.

Approximately 1,531,315 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area. Quadlevel occurrences of this species intersect 

the study area in Utah and Wyoming. 

 

Euderma 

maculatum

Spotted bat BLM-S; 

UT-SC; 

WY-SC

CO–Garfield, 

Rio Blanco; 

UT–Duchesne, 

Garfield, Grand, 

San Juan, Uintah, 

Wayne; 

WY–Sweetwater

Potential for negative impact.

Approximately 755,032 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area. Quadlevel occurrences of this species intersect 

the study area in Utah. 

 

Glaucomys 

sabrinus 

Northern flying 

squirrel 

WY-SC WY–Lincoln, 

Sublette, Sweetwater, 

Uinta 

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat for the species may occur in the 

study area in Wyoming. 

 

Gulo gulo Wolverine CO-E; 

WY-SC

CO–Garfield, 

Rio Blanco; 

WY–Lincoln, 

Sublette

Potential for negative impact.

Approximately 569 acres of potentially 

suitable habitat for this species occurs in 

the study area. Quad-level occurrences 

are within 6 mi of the study area in 

Colorado.

 

Lasiurus 

blossevillii

Western red bat BLM-S; 

UT-SC

UT–Carbon, Emery, 

Grand, Garfield, 

San Juan, Wayne

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat for the species may occur in the 

study area. Quad-level occurrences are 

within 10 mi of the study area in Utah.

 

 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-44 

TABLE 6.1.1-8 (Cont.)

Scientific Name Common Name Statusa

States and Counties 

within the Study Area 

in Which Species 

May Occur Potential for Effectb

 

Mammals (Cont.) 

Lontra 

Canadensis 

River otter WY-SC WY–Lincoln, 

Sublette, Sweetwater, 

Uinta 

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat for the species may occur in the 

study area in Wyoming. 

 

Martes 

Americana 

American marten WY-SC WY–Lincoln, 

Sublette, Sweetwater, 

Uinta 

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat for the species may occur in the 

study area in Wyoming. 

 

Microtus 

richardsoni

Water vole WY-SC WY–Lincoln, 

Sublette, Uinta

Potential for negative impact.

Approximately 9,679 acres of potentially 

suitable habitat for this species occurs in 

the study area.

 

Myotis 

ciliolabrum 

Western smallfooted bat WY-SC WY–Lincoln, 

Sublette, Sweetwater, 

Uinta 

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat for the species may occur in the 

study area in Wyoming. 

 

Myotis evotis Long-eared myotis BLM-S WY–Lincoln, 

Sublette, Sweetwater, 

Uinta

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 1,240,116 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area. Quadlevel occurrences of this species intersect 

the study area in Wyoming. 

 

Myotis 

thysanodes

Fringed myotis BLM-S; 

UT-SC; 

WY-SC

CO–Garfield, 

Rio Blanco; 

UT–Duchesne, 

Garfield, Grand, 

San Juan, Uintah, 

Wayne; WY–Sublette

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 938,428 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area. Quadlevel occurrences of this species intersect 

the study area in Utah. 

 

Myotis volans Long-legged 

myotis 

WY-SC WY–Lincoln, 

Sublette, Sweetwater, 

Uinta 

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat for the species may occur in the 

study area in Wyoming. 

 

Nyctinomops 

macrotis

Big free-tailed bat BLM-S; 

UT-SC

CO–Garfield; 

UT–Carbon, 

Duchesne, Emery, 

Garfield, Grand, 

San Juan, Uintah, 

Wayne

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 825,985 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area. Quadlevel occurrences of this species intersect 

the study area in Utah. 

 

Ovis canadensis Bighorn sheep WY-SC WY–Lincoln, 

Sublette, Sweetwater 

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat for the species may occur in the 

study area in Wyoming. 

 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-45 

TABLE 6.1.1-8 (Cont.)

Scientific Name Common Name Statusa

States and Counties 

within the Study Area 

in Which Species 

May Occur Potential for Effectb

 

Mammals (Cont.) 

Peromyscus 

crinitus

Canyon mouse WY-SC WY–Sweetwater Potential for negative impact.

Approximately 317,615 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area.

 

Peromyscus truei Pinon mouse WY-SC WY–Sweetwater Potential for negative impact.

Approximately 843,307 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area.

 

Sorex nanus Dwarf shrew WY-SC WY–Lincoln, 

Sublette, Sweetwater, 

Uinta 

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat for the species may occur in the 

study area in Wyoming. 

 

Sorex preblei Preble’s shrew WY-SC WY–Lincoln, Uinta No impact. Suitable habitat for the 

species does not occur in the study area.

 

Tamias dorsalis 

utahensis

Cliff chipmunk WY-SC WY–Sweetwater No impact. Suitable habitat for the 

species does not occur in the study area.

 

Thomomys 

clusius

Wyoming pocket 

gopher

BLM-S; 

WY-SC

WY–Sweetwater Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 87,791 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area. Quadlevel occurrences of this species intersect 

the study area in Wyoming. 

 

Thomomys 

idahoensis

Idaho pocket 

gopher

BLM-S; 

WY-SC

WY–Lincoln, 

Sublette, Uinta

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 141,536 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area. Quadlevel occurrences of this species intersect 

the study area in Wyoming. 

 

Vulpes macrotis Kit fox BLM-S; 

CO-E; 

UT-SC

CO–Garfield, 

Rio Blanco; 

UT–Carbon, 

Duchesne, Emery, 

Garfield, Grand, 

San Juan, Uintah, 

Wayne

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat for the species does not occur in 

the study area. Quad-level occurrences of 

this species intersect the study area in 

Utah. 

 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-46 

TABLE 6.1.1-8 (Cont.)

Scientific Name Common Name Statusa

States and Counties 

within the Study Area 

in Which Species 

May Occur Potential for Effectb

 

Mammals (Cont.) 

Vulpes velox Swift fox BLM-S; 

WY-SC

WY–Sweetwater Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 11,970 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area. This 

species is not known to occur in the 

vicinity of any study area. Nearest 

occurrences are approximately 50 mi 

from the study area in Wyoming.

a Status categories: BLM-S = listed by the BLM as sensitive; CO-E = listed as endangered by the State of Colorado; 

CO-SC = species of special concern in the state of Colorado; CO-T = listed as threatened by the State of Colorado; 

ESA-C = candidate for listing under the ESA; UT-SC = species of special concern in the state of Utah; WY-SC = species 

of special concern in the state of Wyoming. 

b Potential impacts are based upon the presence of potentially suitable habitat or recorded occurrences in the vicinity of the 

Alternative 1 footprint (i.e., study area). Recorded occurrences were obtained as USGS quad-level or township range-level 

element occurrence records from state natural heritage program offices (CNHP 2011; UDWR 2011; WYNDD 2011a). If 

available for terrestrial vertebrates, SWReGAP animal habitat suitability models (USGS 2007) and terrestrial vertebrate 

distribution models for the state of Wyoming (WYNDD 2011b) were used to determine the presence of potentially 

suitable habitat in the Alternative 1 footprint (i.e., study area). 

priority habitats3 and lek sites are shown in Figure 6.1.1-5. Under Alternative 1, potential oil 

shale lease areas intersect approximately 53,691 acres, 171,771 acres, and 489,000 acres of 

core or priority sage-grouse habitat in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming, respectively. The areas 

available for application for leasing under Alternative 1 also include more than 382,000 acres for 

which lease stipulations have been established in existing RMPs to protect federally listed and 

candidate species, BLM-designated sensitive species, and other special status species. 

 The potential for impacts on threatened, endangered, and sensitive species (and their 

habitats) by commercial oil shale development is directly related to the amount of land 

disturbance that could occur with a commercial project (including its ancillary facilities, such 

as power plants and utility and pipeline ROWs), the duration and timing of construction and 

operation periods, and the habitats affected by development. Indirect effects, such as impacts 

resulting from the erosion of disturbed land surfaces, surface or groundwater depletions, 

contamination, and disturbance and harassment of animal species, are also considered, but 

their relative magnitude is considered proportional to the amount of land disturbance.

 

3 Data and habitats considered as core or priority greater sage-grouse habitat for this PEIS are discussed in a text 

box in Section 3.7.4.3.1. 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-47 

TABLE 6.1.1-9 Potential Effects of Commercial Oil Shale Development under Alternative 1 on 

Federally Listed Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Species 

Scientific Name Common Name Statusa

States and Counties 

within the Study Area 

in Which Species 

May Occur Potential for Effectb

 

Plants 

Lepidium 

barnebyanum 

Barneby ridgecress ESA-E UT–Duchesne No impact. Suitable habitat does not 

occur in the study area. Known 

distribution is outside of the potential 

lease areas. 

 

Lesquerella 

congesta 

Dudley Bluffs 

bladderpod 

ESA-T CO–Rio Blanco Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area. 

Quad-level occurrences of this species 

intersect the study area in Colorado. 

 

Penstemon 

debilis 

Parachute 

beardtongue 

ESA-T CO–Garfield Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area. 

Quad-level occurrences of this species 

intersect the study area in Colorado. 

 

Penstemon 

grahamii 

Graham’s 

beardtongue 

ESA-PT; 

BLM 

CO–Rio Blanco; 

UT–Duchesne, 

Uintah 

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area. 

Quad-level occurrences of this species 

intersect the study area in Utah. 

 

Phacelia 

argillacea 

Clay phacelia ESA-E UT–Utah, Wasatch Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area. 

Quad-level occurrences are within 5 mi 

of the study area in Utah. 

 

Phacelia 

scopulina var.

submutica 

Debeque phacelia ESA-T CO–Garfield Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area. 

Quad-level occurrences are within 5 mi 

of the study area in Colorado. 

 

Physaria 

obcordata 

Dudley Bluffs 

twinpod 

ESA-T CO–Rio Blanco Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area. 

Quad-level occurrences of this species 

intersect the study area in Colorado. 

 

Schoenocrambe 

argillacea 

Clay reed-mustard ESA-T UT–Uintah Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area. 

Quad-level occurrences of this species 

intersect the study area in Utah. 

 

Schoenocrambe 

suffrutescens 

Shrubby reedmustard 

ESA-E UT–Duchesne, 

Uintah 

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area. 

Quad-level occurrences of this species 

intersect the study area in Utah. 

 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-48 

TABLE 6.1.1-9 (Cont.)

Scientific Name Common Name Statusa

States and Counties 

with the Study Area 

in Which Species 

May Occur Potential for Effectb

 

Plants (Cont.) 

Sclerocactus 

brevispinus 

Pariette cactus ESA-T UT–Duchesne, Uintah Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area. 

Quad-level occurrences of this species 

intersect the study area in Utah. 

 

Sclerocactus 

glaucus 

Colorado hookless 

cactus 

ESA-T CO–Garfield Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area. 

Quad-level occurrences are within 5 mi 

of the study area in Colorado. 

 

Sclerocactus 

wetlandicus 

Uinta Basin 

hookless cactus 

ESA-T UT-Carbon, 

Duchesne, Uintah 

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area. 

Quad-level occurrences of this species 

intersect the study area in Utah. 

 

Spiranthes 

diluvialis 

Ute ladies’-tresses ESA-T UT–Duchesne, 

Garfield, Uintah, 

Wayne 

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area. 

Quad-level occurrences of this species 

intersect the study area in Utah. 

 

Fish 

Gila cypha Humpback chub ESA-E; 

CO-T 

UT–Carbon, Emery, 

Garfield, Grand, 

San Juan, Uintah, 

Wayne 

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in or near the study 

area. Quad-level occurrences of this 

species intersect the study area in Utah. 

 

Gila elegans Bonytail ESA-E UT–Carbon, 

Duchesne, Emery, 

Garfield, Grand, 

San Juan, Uintah, 

Wayne 

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in or near the study 

area. Quad-level occurrences of this 

species intersect the study area in Utah. 

 

Ptychocheilus 

lucius 

Colorado 

pikeminnow 

ESA-E; 

CO-T 

CO–Rio Blanco; 

UT–Carbon, 

Duchesne, Emery, 

Garfield, Grand, 

San Juan, Uintah, 

Wayne 

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in or near the study 

area. Quad-level occurrences of this 

species intersect the study area in 

Colorado and Utah. 

 

Xyrauchen 

texanus 

Razorback sucker ESA-E; 

CO-E 

CO–Garfield, 

Rio Blanco; 

UT–Carbon, Emery 

Garfield, Grand, 

San Juan, Uintah, 

Wayne 

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in or near the study 

area. Quad-level occurrences of this 

species intersect the study area in 

Colorado and Utah. 

 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-49 

TABLE 6.1.1-9 (Cont.)

Scientific Name Common Name Statusa

States and Counties 

with the Study Area 

in Which Species 

May Occur Potential for Effectb

 

Birds 

Empidonax 

traillii extimus 

Southwestern 

willow flycatcher 

ESA-E UT–Carbon, Emery, 

Garfield, Grand, 

San Juan, Uintah, 

Wayne 

Potential for negative impact.

Approximately 907,570 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area. 

 

Grus americana Whooping crane ESA-XN; 

CO-E 

CO–Garfield, 

Rio Blanco 

No impact. Suitable habitat for the 

species does not occur in the study area. 

This species may occur only as a rare 

migrant in the study area. 

 

Strix occidentalis 

lucida 

Mexican spotted 

owl 

ESA-T CO–Garfield, 

Rio Blanco; 

UT–Emery, Garfield, 

Grand, San Juan, 

Uintah, Wayne 

Potential for negative impact.

Approximately 26,004 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area. Quadlevel occurrences of this species intersect 

the study area in Utah. 

 

Mammals 

Lynx canadensis Canada lynx ESA-T; 

CO-E; 

WY-SC 

CO–Garfield, 

Rio Blanco; 

UT–Emery, Uintah; 

WY Lincoln, 

Sublette, Uinta 

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 1,167 acres of potentially 

suitable habitat for this species occurs in 

the study area. Quad-level occurrences of 

this species intersect the study area in 

Wyoming. 

 

Mustela nigripes Black-footed ferret ESA-XN; 

CO-E 

CO–Rio Blanco; 

UT–Carbon, 

Duchesne, Emery, 

Grand, San Juan, 

Uintah; 

WY–Sublette, 

Sweetwater 

Potential for negative impact.

Approximately 133,437 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area. Quadlevel occurrences of this species intersect 

the study area in Utah and Wyoming. 

a Status categories: BLM-S = listed by the BLM as sensitive; CO-E = listed as endangered by the State of Colorado; 

CO-T = listed as threatened by the State of Colorado; ESA-E = listed as endangered under the ESA; ESA-PT = proposed 

for listing as a threatened species under the ESA; ESA-T = listed as threatened under the ESA; ESA-XN = experimental, 

nonessential population; WY-SC = species of special concern in the state of Wyoming.

b Potential impacts are based upon the presence of potentially suitable habitat or recorded occurrences in the vicinity of the 

Alternative 1 footprint (i.e., study area). Recorded occurrences were obtained as USGS quad-level or township range-level 

element occurrence records from state natural heritage program offices (CNHP 2011; UDWR 2011; WYNDD 2011a). If 

available for terrestrial vertebrates, SWReGAP animal habitat suitability models (USGS 2007) and terrestrial vertebrate 

distribution models for the state of Wyoming (WYNDD 2011b) were used to determine the presence of potentially 

suitable habitat in the Alternative 1 footprint (i.e., study area). Spatial data for designated critical habitat were obtained 

from the USFWS Critical Habitat Portal (USFWS 2011).
Final OSTS PEIS 6-50 

FIGURE 6.1.1-4 Designated Critical Habitat of Threatened and Endangered Species That Are in 

or near Lands Available for Application for Leasing under Alternative 1 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-51 

FIGURE 6.1.1-5 Overlap of Lands Available for Application for Leasing under Alternative 1 

with Core Habitat Areas of the Greater Sage-Grouse 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-52 

 Potential impacts on threatened and endangered species (see Section 4.8.1.4) under 

Alternative 1 are fundamentally similar to or the same as impacts on aquatic resources, plant 

communities and habitats, and wildlife described in Sections 4.8.1.1, 4.8.1.2, and 4.8.1.3, 

respectively. The most important difference is the potential consequence of the impacts. Because 

of their low population sizes, threatened and endangered species are far more vulnerable than 

more common and widespread species. Low population size makes them more vulnerable to the 

effects of habitat fragmentation, habitat alteration, habitat degradation, human disturbance and 

harassment, mortality of individuals, and the loss of genetic diversity. Specific impacts 

associated with development would depend on the locations of projects relative to species 

populations and the details of project development. These impacts would be evaluated in detail 

in project-specific assessments and consultations conducted prior to leasing and development. 

6.1.1.8 Visual Resources 

 Under Alternative 1, a total of 2,017,741 acres of public land in Colorado, Utah, and 

Wyoming are identified as available for application for leasing for commercial development of 

oil shale. These lands support a wide variety of visual resources (Section 3.8). These resources 

are not affected by the amendment of land use plans to identify the lands as available for 

application for commercial leasing. However, visual resources in and around these 

2,017,741 acres could be affected by future commercial development of oil shale. 

 Certain scenic resource areas are located within the lease areas identified under 

Alternative 1 in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming (Figures 6.1.1-6, 6.1.1-7, and 6.1.1-8, 

respectively). These include the following: 

• Colorado: Duck Creek, Dudley Bluffs, Ryan Gulch, and East Fork–Parachute 

Creek ACECs; 

• Wyoming: Greater Red Creek, Pine Springs, and Special Status Plant Species 

ACECs; 

• Utah: Lower Green River, Nine Mile Canyon, and Pariette ACECs; Blue 

Mountain, Fantasy Canyon, Nine Mile, Pelican Lake, and White River 

SRMAs. 

 Additional scenic resource areas are located within 5 or 15 mi of the Alternative 1 

proposed lease areas. The 5-mi zone corresponds to the BLM’s VRM foreground-middleground 

distance limit, and the 15-mi zone corresponds to the BLM’s background distance limit. Based 

on the assumption of an unobstructed view of the project, viewers in these areas would be likely 

to perceive some level of visual impact from a commercial oil shale project; impacts are 

expected to be greater for resources within the foreground-middleground distance, and lesser for 

resources within the background distance. Beyond the background distance, the project might be 

visible but would likely occupy a very small visual angle and create low levels of visual contrast 

such that impacts would be expected to be minor to negligible. Table 6.1.1-10 lists the scenic 

resource areas that fall within these zones. 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-53 

FIGURE 6.1.1-6 Scenic Resource Areas within the 5-mi and 15-mi Zones around the Lands 

Available for Application for Leasing under Alternative 1 in Colorado
Final OSTS PEIS 6-54 

FIGURE 6.1.1-7 Scenic Resource Areas within the 5-mi and 15-mi Zones around the Lands 

Available for Application for Leasing under Alternative 1 in Utah
Final OSTS PEIS 6-55 

FIGURE 6.1.1-8 Scenic Resource Areas within the 5-mi and 15-mi Zones around the Lands 

Available for Application for Leasing under Alternative 1 in Wyoming 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-56 

TABLE 6.1.1-10 Visually Sensitive Areas That Could Be Affected by Commercial Oil Shale 

Projects within the Lease Areas Identified under Alternative 1 

Location 

Scenic Resources within 5 mi of 

Alternative 1 Lease Areas 

Scenic Resources between 5 and 15 mi of 

Alternative 1 Lease Areas 

 

Colorado Deer Gulch, Duck Creek, Dudley Bluffs, East 

Douglas Creek, East Douglas Creek/South 

Cathedral Bluffs Addition, East Fork Parachute 

Creek, Lower Greasewood Creek, Magpie 

Gulch, Ryan Gulch, South Cathedral Bluffs 

Addition, South Cathedral Bluffs/South 

Cathedral Bluffs Addition, Trapper Creek, 

Trapper Creek/Northwater Creek, Upper 

Greasewood Creek, White River Riparian, and 

Yanks Gulch ACECs; segments of Trapper 

Creek, Northwater Creek, and East Fork 

Parachute Creek determined to be eligible for 

WSR designation; and Black Mountain WSA. 

Anvil Points, Blacks Gulch, Coal Draw, Coal 

Oil Rim, East Douglas Creek, East Fork 

Parachute Creek, Lower Colorado River, 

Magpie Gulch, Pyramid Rock RNA, and White 

River Riparian ACECs; segments of East Fork 

Parachute Creek determined to be eligible for 

WSR designation; Dinosaur Diamond 

Prehistoric National Scenic Highway; and Black 

Mountain and Windy Gulch WSAs. 

 

Utah Lower Green River Corridor, Nine Mile, Oil 

Spring Mountain, Pariette, Raven Ridge, Raven 

Ridge Addition, Raven Ridge/Raven Ridge 

Addition, and White River Riparian ACECs; 

Ouray NWR; Dinosaur Diamond Prehistoric 

National Scenic Highway; Ninemile and White 

River SRMA; and the Desolation Canyon, Oil 

Spring Mountain, and Winter Ridge WSAs. 

Coal Oil Rim, Moosehead Mountain, Nine Mile, 

Oil Spring Mountain, Raven Ridge, Raven 

Ridge Addition, and White River Riparian 

ACECs; Dinosaur National Monument; Ouray 

NWR; Dinosaur Diamond Prehistoric National 

Scenic Highway; Nine Mile, Blue Mountain, 

and Pelican Lake SRMAs; segments of Lower 

Green River determined to be eligible for WSR 

designation; and Desolation Canyon, Oil Spring 

Mountain, Winter Ridge, Book Cliffs Mountain 

Browse, Bull Canyon, Jack Canyon, and Willow 

Creek WSAs. 

 

Wyoming Greater Red Creek, Greater Sand Dunes, Hells 

Canyon, Pine Springs, Special Status Plant 

Species, and White Mountain Petroglyphs 

ACECs; Expedition Island NHL; Bryan South 

Pass Road, California, Cherokee Trail–Northern 

Route, Cherokee Trail–Southern Route, 

Mormon Pioneer, Oregon, Overland, and Pony 

Express NHTs; Seedskadee NWR; and Adobe 

Town, Buffalo Hump, Devils Playground/Twin 

Buttes, and Sand Dunes WSAs. 

Ace in the Hole, Browns Park, Cedar Canyon, 

Greater Red Creek, Greater Sand Dunes, Horse 

Draw, Irish Canyon, Limestone Ridge, Lookout 

Mountain, Red Creek, Special Status Plant 

Species, Steamboat Mountain, and Vermillion 

Bluffs ACECs; Bryan South Pass Road, 

California, Cherokee Trail–Northern Route, 

Cherokee Trail–Southern Route. Mormon 

Pioneer, Oregon, Overland, and Pony Express 

NHTs; segments of Upper Green River (Utah) 

determined to be eligible for WSR designation; 

Flaming Gorge Uintas Scenic Highway; High 

Uintas Wilderness; and Adobe Town, Red 

Creek Badlands, Sand Dunes, and West Cold 

Spring WSAs. 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-57 

 Visual resources could be affected at and near the lease areas where commercial oil shale 

projects would be developed and operated, and at areas where supporting infrastructure (such as 

power and utility and pipeline ROWs) would be located. Visual resources could be affected by 

ROW clearing, project construction, and operation (see Section 4.9.1). Potential impacts could 

be associated with construction equipment and activity, cleared project areas, and the type and 

visibility of individual project components, such as shale-processing facilities, utility ROWs, and 

surface mines. The nature, magnitude, and extent of project-related impacts would depend on the 

type, location, and design of the individual project components. 

6.1.1.9 Cultural Resources 

 Under Alternative 1, the amendment of land use plans to identify 2,017,741 acres of 

public land as available for application for commercial oil shale leasing would not result in 

impacts on cultural resources. However, cultural resources within these areas could be adversely 

affected if future leasing and development take place. The lands available under Alternative 1 

overlap with lands that have been specifically identified as having cultural resources. Of the 

public lands that would be available under Alternative 1 for application for leasing, 

approximately 36% in the Piceance Basin, approximately 35% in the Uinta Basin, and 

approximately 8% in the Green River and Washakie Basins have been surveyed for cultural 

resources. A total of approximately 8,406 sites4 have been identified in these surveyed areas. 

Additional cultural resources are likely to exist in the unsurveyed portions of the proposed lease 

areas. On the basis of a sensitivity analysis conducted for the Class I Cultural Resources 

Overview (O’Rourke et al. 2012), about 210,038 acres (60%) in the Piceance Basin, 

398,682 acres (59%) in the Uinta Basin, and 859,666 acres (86%) in the Green River and 

Washakie Basins within Alternative 1 have been identified as having a medium or high 

sensitivity for containing cultural resources. 

 Leasing itself has the potential to have an impact on cultural resources to the extent that 

the terms of the lease limit an agency’s ability to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects of 

proposed development to cultural properties. Impacts from subsequent development could 

include the destruction of individual resources present within development footprints, 

degradation and/or destruction of near-surface resources in or near the development area, 

increased potential of loss of resource from looting or vandalism to resources as a result of 

increased human presence/activity in the sensitive areas, and visual degradation of cultural 

setting (see Section 6.1.1.8). Compliance with all pertinent laws, regulations, and policies at both 

the leasing and development stages would likely result in lease stipulations and other measures at 

the project development stage to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts on cultural resources, or 

in the denial of the lease or project. 

 

 

4 The archaeological site tools used in the analysis of the alternatives for the PEIS were modified from the raw site 

tallies supplied by the Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming SHPOs in 2011. The unfiltered site data, and the associated 

spatial data included with them, serve as the basis for the cultural sensitivity models. However, duplicate site 

entries were removed prior to generating the numbers used for the alternatives analysis. 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-58 

6.1.1.10 Indian Tribal Concerns 

 The areas under consideration for oil shale development all have a long history of 

Native American habitation and use. They are likely to include resources important to Native 

Americans, including evidence of past life in the area, such as burials, archaeological sites, and 

rock art panels; landscape features important to their cultural traditions; ceremonial sites; and 

sources of traditional resources still in use, such as plants for medicine and sustenance, minerals 

for ceremonial use, and the habitat of culturally important animals. Under Alternative 1, no 

existing BLM land use plans would be modified. Tribes with traditional ties to the BLM 

planning areas were contacted and provided the opportunity to consult during the development 

of these plans. Many Native American concerns have been taken into account in the plans and 

procedures laid out in these plans. It is estimated that 2,017,741 acres of BLM-administered 

land would continue to be available for application for commercial leasing, and management 

prescriptions in existing plans would not be modified. Making land available for application for 

leasing would not affect resources important to Native Americans. However, leasing and future 

development could result in adverse impacts. Impacts would vary with the size, location, and 

technology chosen to develop the lease. Under Alternative 1, surface mining, which has the most 

potential for adverse impacts, would be allowed in parts of Utah and Wyoming. Surface mining 

could result in the complete or partial removal of places and resources important to the tribes. 

Underground mining and associated processing facilities would have less potential for complete 

destruction, but would include the potential for partial destruction of sites and resources, for an 

increase in the likelihood of vandalism by introducing more people to the area being developed, 

and for visual and auditory intrusion on sacred and traditionally important landscapes. Under 

Alternative 1, split estate parcels in the Hill Creek Extension of the Uintah and Ouray 

Reservation, where the tribe owns the surface rights and the government owns the subsurface 

rights, could be leased. This would affect the surface resources of the reservation. 

 Current BLM land management plans, implemented consistent with such authorities as 

NAGPRA, AIRFA, NHPA, E.O. 13007, the Energy Policy Act of 2005, and BLM regulations, 

have mechanisms in place for consultations with tribes with regard to undertakings on BLMadministered lands and show a commitment to coordinating development of the subsurface estate 

with surface owners. Early and effective consultation can reduce the impacts of oil shale 

development on resources important to Native Americans through avoidance, facility design, and 

access provisions procedures such as coordination with tribal surface owners of split estate lands 

(BLM 2008c). Proactive measures such as conducting the cultural resource surveys required by 

Section 106 of the NHPA can enhance the consultation process. Land excluded from commercial 

leasing in the current plans (see Section 3.1), such as ACECs currently closed to mineral 

development, Wilderness Areas, WSAs, and WSRs, often include surface use restrictions, timing 

limitations on use, and other stipulations that act to protect resources important to tribes. Under 

Alternative 1 all the exclusions listed in Table 2.3.2-2, except the MMTA in Wyoming, would 

reduce impacts on traditional resources important to tribes. Specific lease stipulations developed 

in consultation with affected tribes at the time of decision-making regarding possible leasing and 

development could reduce the impacts on resources that may be affected by the development of 

specific parcels. 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-59 

6.1.1.11 Socioeconomics 

 Under Alternative 1, a total of 2,017,741 acres of public land in Colorado, Utah, and 

Wyoming would remain identified as available for application for leasing for commercial 

development of oil shale. With the possible exception of an impact on property values, there is 

no socioeconomic impact of this identification. The socioeconomic impacts described in 

Section 4.12 and summarized in this section are for hypothetical individual commercial oil shale 

projects. These represent the types of impacts that could occur as a result of commercial 

development on lands identified as available for commercial leasing. The specific socioeconomic 

impacts of future commercial oil shale projects would be dependent upon the technologies 

employed, the project size or production level, and development time lines and mitigation 

measures. 

• Oil shale developments and their associated ancillary facilities might affect 

property values in ROI communities located nearby. Furthermore, it is 

possible that there will be property value impacts simply from designating 

land as available for application for leasing; these impacts could result in 

either decreased or increased property values (see Section 4.12.1.6). Property 

values might decline in some locations as a result of the anticipated, and, if 

eventually leased and developed, actual deterioration in aesthetic quality, 

increases in noise, real or perceived health effects, congestion, or social 

disruption. In other locations, property values might increase as a result of 

new access to employment opportunities associated with oil shale 

developments. 

• Under Alternative 1, surface mining with surface retorting could produce 

about 2,300 total (direct plus indirect) jobs in the three ROIs in the peak year 

of construction, and 3,000 jobs during operations. Underground mining could 

create 3,500 jobs during construction, and 4,700 jobs created during the 

operating period. An in situ processing facility could create 1,100 jobs during 

construction and 360 jobs during operations. Income produced by each 

technology could be $89 million to $501 million during construction and 

operations in the three ROIs, and peak construction employment could 

represent an increase of 0.2% to 2.0% over the projected peak year 

employment in the three ROIs. 

• Construction of power plants in association with in situ facilities (if needed) 

could produce 2,200 total jobs in the three ROIs during the peak construction 

year and 240 jobs during operations. The construction and operation of these 

ancillary power plants could produce $166 million in income in the three 

ROIs, and peak construction employment would represent an increase of 0.5% 

to 1.3% over the projected ROI employment baseline in the peak year. 

Ancillary coal mine development in each ROI, also possibly associated with 

in situ facilities, could produce 650 jobs during construction and 

510 employees during operations. Coal mine construction and operation could 

produce $69 million in income in the three ROIs, and peak construction 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-60 

employment for the coal mines would represent an increase of 0.41% to 0.5% 

over the projected peak year employment in the three ROIs. 

• Construction of housing provided for oil shale workers and their families 

could create 270 to 890 jobs and $6 million to $21 million in income in the 

ROIs. Construction of housing for power plant workers and families 

(associated with in situ facilities only) could create 580 jobs, while 

construction of housing for coal mine workers (if needed) could produce 

165 jobs. Income of $14 million could be produced during construction of 

housing for power plant workers and $4 million during construction of coal 

mine worker housing. 

• Population increases associated with the construction of an underground mine 

project would represent an increase of 0.6% to 1.4% over the ROI baseline 

population during construction and 1% to 3.2% during operations, with 

similar increases expected for a surface mine. If additional power plants and 

coal mines are needed in association with in situ facilities, population 

increases associated with the power plants would represent increases of 0.8% 

to 1.7% during construction and 0.1% to 0.3% during operations. Coal mine 

development would increase ROI population by 0.1% to 0.4% during 

construction and by 0.2% to 0.3% during operations in each ROI. 

• For oil shale facilities, the associated in-migrating population could absorb 

2.9% to 6.2% of vacant housing units. For a power plant (if needed), 

population increases associated with construction could require 3.8% to 6.4% 

of the vacant housing stock in the ROIs, while coal mine development (if 

needed) could require 0.5% to 2.9% of vacant units in the ROIs. 

• A surface mine facility could require an increase of 1.1% to 1.7% in local 

expenditures during construction and 2.5% to 3.8% during operations 

(Table 4.12.1-5). Construction of an underground mine would require an 

increase in local public service provision of 1.0% to 1.7% in expenditures 

during construction and 1.8% to 3.9% during operations. Construction of an in 

situ facility could require an increase in local public service provision of 1.2% 

to 1.9% in expenditures during construction and 0.5% to 1.1% during 

operations. A power plant (if needed) could require an increase in local public 

service provision of 1.1% to 1.9% in expenditures during construction and 

0.2% to 0.4% during operations (Table 4.12.1-6). Coal mine development (if 

needed) could require an increase in local government expenditures of 0.2% to 

0.6% during construction and 0.3% to 0.5% during operations. 

• The number of new residents from outside the producing regions and the pace 

of population growth associated with the commercial development of oil shale 

resources, including large-scale production facilities and ancillary power 

plants, coal mines, and housing developments, would likely lead to substantial 

demographic and social change in small rural communities. These 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-61 

communities would likely be required to adapt to a different quality of life—

away from a more traditional lifestyle in small, isolated, close-knit, 

homogenous communities with a strong orientation toward personal and 

family relationships, toward a more urban lifestyle, with increasing cultural 

and ethnic diversity and increasing dependence on formal social relationships 

within the community. 

• Substantial changes in access to water by agriculture may or may not occur 

and could have large impacts on the economy of each ROI, and these would 

depend on the amount of agricultural production lost, the extent of local 

employment in agriculture, the reliance of other industries in each ROI on 

agricultural production, the extent of local procurement of equipment and 

supplies by agriculture, and the local spending of wage and salaries by 

farmers, ranchers, and farmworkers. Loss of property tax revenues on 

agricultural land could also have an impact on local government expenditures 

and, consequently, on the provision of public services in local communities in 

each ROI. Changes in agricultural activity could change the character of 

community life in each ROI, with a movement away from activities that 

historically represent small rural communities. 

• The impact of each oil shale technology on recreational visitation in the 

Colorado ROI would be the loss of 1,388 jobs if there were a 10% reduction 

in recreation employment, and 2,522 jobs for a 20% decline in recreation 

employment. In the Utah ROI, 409 jobs would be lost as a whole as a result of 

a 10% reduction in recreation employment, and 818 jobs would be lost with a 

20% reduction. In the Wyoming ROI, 1,261 jobs would be lost under the 10% 

scenario, and 2,522 jobs under the 20% scenario. There is no way to be certain 

whether there will actually be reductions in recreational employment. 

 The identification of 2,017,741 acres of public land in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming for 

application for leasing for commercial development of oil shale is expected to have no impacts 

on transportation systems and infrastructure or on traffic use levels. The identification of these 

lands does not authorize or approve any ground-disturbing activities that could affect 

transportation infrastructure or traffic use levels; however, future commercial oil shale 

development on these lands could have impacts. Any future leasing or development activities 

would be subject to NEPA analysis, which would assess impacts of the proposed action(s). 

Transportation impacts would be similar to those described in Section 4.12.1.8. 

 6.1.1.11.1 Projections. As a representation of the impacts of the No Action Alternative, 

Alternative 1, this section presents projected baseline data for a number of economic and social 

variables used in the analysis of impacts under each alternative, namely, employment, personal 

income, population, housing, and fiscal conditions. Included in the employment, population, and 

public service expenditure projections are the impacts of RD&D projects in Colorado and Utah 

and the designation of acreage for commercial oil shale leasing and development in the three 

states. Projections are presented for a base year, 2009, and for 2012, 2016, 2022, 2027, and 2029, 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-62 

the years likely to produce the largest impacts associated with construction and operation of 

RD&D projects and commercial oil shale facilities. 

 Although the extent of the impact of the current natural gas and oil development on 

employment in each ROI over the next 30 years is not known, growth is expected to be rapid, 

with energy-related employment in northwestern Colorado projected to reach almost 8,900 jobs 

by 2020 and almost 9,300 by 2035 (BBC Research and Consulting 2008). 

Employment. Wage and salary employment projections based on county population 

forecasts indicate that employment will grow at a relatively modest pace in each ROI from 2009 

through 2027 (Table 6.1.1-11). In the Colorado ROI, employment is expected to reach 221,303 

by 2029, with an average annual growth rate of 2.5%, while employment in the state is expected 

to grow at 1.7% over the same period. In the Utah ROI, a growth rate of 1.1% is expected over 

the 2009 through 2029 period, with growth in state employment higher at 2.2%. At these rates, 

by 2029, employment is expected to reach approximately 74,898 in the Utah ROI. Employment 

is expected to stand at about 59,618 in the Wyoming ROI in 2029, with a growth rate of 0.7% in 

the ROI and 0.6% in the state. 

 Forecasts recently completed for the Associated Governments of Northwest Colorado, 

which include some level of oil shale development, indicate that employment is likely to grow 

from 110,683 in 2005 to 184,978 in 2025, at an average annual rate of 2.6%, in the four-county 

area comprising Garfield, Mesa, Moffat, and Rio Blanco Counties (BBC Research and 

Consulting 2008). 

Population. County and state projections indicate that population will grow at a relatively 

modest rate in the Colorado and Utah ROIs between 2009 and 2029. In the Colorado ROI, at an 

average annual growth rate of 2.5%, population is expected to reach 416,860 by 2029, while 

in the Utah ROI, at an annual rate of 1.1% population is expected to reach 140,052 by 2029. In 

Wyoming, relatively low annual growth rates are expected in the ROI (0.7%) between 2009 and 

2029, with population expected to stand at 109,550 in 2029. Fairly rapid annual population 

growth is expected in Utah as a whole (2.2%), with lower annual rates of growth expected for 

Colorado (1.7%) and Wyoming (0.6%) (Table 6.1.1-12). 

 Forecasts recently completed for the Associated Governments of Northwest Colorado 

indicate that the population is likely to grow from 200,835 in 2005 to 345,699 by 2025, at an 

average annual rate of 2.8%, in the four-county area comprising Garfield, Mesa, Moffat, and 

Rio Blanco Counties (BBC Research and Consulting 2008). 

 Fiscal Conditions. In the Colorado ROI, public service expenditures are expected to 

reach $751.4 million by 2027 at an average annual growth rate of 2.6%, while in the Utah ROI 

public service expenditures are expected to reach $264.3 million by 2027, growing at an annual 

rate of 0.9% over the period 2000 through 2027. In Wyoming, relatively low annual growth rates 

are expected in the ROI (0.8%) between 2000 and 2027, with expenditures expected to stand at 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-63 

TABLE 6.1.1-11 Total Employmenta for Each ROI and State 

 

Number of Employees 

Parameter 2009 2012 2016 2022 2027 2029 

 

Colorado 

ROI 134,964 147,309 163,464 192,313 213,754 221,303 

Colorado 2,407,098 2,526,961 2,717,818 3,029,476 3,273,764 3,366,474 

 

Utah 

ROI 59,537 61,706 65,781 70,976 73,777 74,898 

State 1,285,134 1,418,075 1,551,898 1,753,591 1,923,265 1,991,134 

 

Wyoming 

ROI 51,702 53,697 55,535 57,851 59,064 59,618 

State 275,607 277,688 285,572 296,885 307,418 312,051 

a Projections are based on forecasted growth rates in population for each ROI and state. 

Sources: U.S. Department of Labor (2011); Colorado State Demography Office (2011); Utah 

Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget (2011); Wyoming Department of Administration 

and Information (2011). 

TABLE 6.1.1-12 Total Populationa for Each ROI and State 

 

Population 

Parameter 2009 2012 2016 2022 2027 2029 

 

Colorado 

ROI 254,227 277,480 307,911 363,383 402,641 416,860 

State 5,074,567 5,327,259 5,729,618 6,386,646 6,901,645 7,097,093 

 

Utah 

ROI 112,037 115,948 123,313 132,760 137,969 140,052 

State 2,784,572 3,072,624 3,362,585 3,799,604 4,167,246 4,314,303 

 

Wyoming 

ROI 94,868 98,550 101,940 106,230 108,510 109,550 

State 544,270 548,380 563,370 586,290 607,090 616,240 

a Projections are based on forecasted growth rates in population for each ROI and state. 

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau (2006a); Colorado State Demography Office (2011); Utah 

Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget (2011); Wyoming Department of Administration 

and Information (2011). 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-64 

$319.0 million in 2027. Fairly rapid public service expenditure growth is expected in Utah as a 

whole (3.0%), with lower annual rates of growth expected for Colorado (1.7%) and Wyoming 

(0.8%) (Table 6.1.1-13). 

 6.1.1.11.2 Impacts Common to All Alternatives. Construction and operation of RD&D 

oil shale facilities and the associated temporary housing will impact the economies of each ROI. 

On the basis of employment numbers presented in the EAs and the IMPLAN model results 

(MIG, Inc. 2012; see discussion of the socioeconomic assessment methodology in Section 4.12), 

TABLE 6.1.1-13 Annual State and ROI Public Service Expenditures Comparing Each 

ROI and Statea

Public Service Expenditures ($ million 2005) 

Parameter 2005 2009 2012 2016 2022 2027 

 

Colorado 

ROI 416.8 461.9 504.2 568.1 699.0 751.4 

State 39,481 42,720 45,267 48.783 54.073 58,483 

 

Utah 

ROI 215.4 219.1 224.8 234.6 250.3 264.3 

State 19,455 21,307 23,682 27,685 33,250 38,255 

 

Wyoming 

ROI 268.8 285.8 293.2 299.8 309.8 319.0 

State 5,638 5,919 6,068 6,240 6,501 6,732 

a Projections are based on forecasted growth rates in population for each ROI and state. 

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); Garfield County (2004); 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 (2006a,b). 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-65 

the five current, two approved, and one pending in situ RD&D projects will create 1,720 jobs 

(1,080 direct jobs at oil shale facilities and 640 indirect jobs in the remainder of the local 

economy) in the Colorado ROI and $123 million in income during the peak year of construction. 

1,155 jobs (713 direct and 401 indirect jobs) would be created during operations, producing 

$63 million in income (Table 6.1.1-14). In situ construction employment represents an increase 

of 1.42% over the projected ROI employment baseline for 2012 (see Section 3.11.2). The 

underground mining and surface retort projects in Utah will create 378 jobs (240 direct and 

138 indirect jobs) and $23 million in income during the peak construction year, and 368 jobs 

(240 direct and 128 indirect) and $22 million in income during the first year of operation. 

6.1.1.12 Environmental Justice 

 Under Alternative 1, a total of 2,017,741 acres of public land in Colorado, Utah, and 

Wyoming would remain identified as available for application for leasing for commercial 

development of oil shale. Data in Tables 3.12-1 show the minority and low-income composition 

TABLE 6.1.1-14 Estimated ROI Economic Impacts of RD&D Oil Shale Development Projects 

Common to All Alternativesa

 

Oil Shale Development 

 

Housing Construction 

 

Construction 

 

Operation 

Parameter 

Employment 

(number of 

jobs) 

Income 

($ million) 

 

Employment 

(number of 

jobs) 

Income 

($ million) 

 

Employment 

(number of 

jobs) 

Income 

($ million) 

 

Colorado 

In situ processing 

(5 RD&D projects) 

 

 Direct 305 6.8 1,080 78.1 713 51.6 

 Indirect 88 2.8 640 18.8 401 11.3 

 Total 393 9.6 1,720 396.9 1,115 62.9 

 

Utah 

Underground mining 

with surface retorting 

(1 RD&D project)

 Direct 34 0.6 240 19.2 240 19.2 

 Indirect 8 0.2 138 3.4 128 3.0 

 Total 42 0.8 378 22.6 368 22.2 

a Totals may be off due to rounding. The direct employment data presented in this table for the construction and operation 

of the RD&D projects are based on information contained in the final EAs prepared for the six RD&D projects. Direct 

employment numbers and multiplier data from the IMPLAN model (MIG, Inc. 2012) were used to calculate indirect 

employment numbers for each ROI. The direct employment numbers for the construction of the in situ projects are based 

on the assumption that only three projects will be under construction simultaneously (American Shale Oil [AMSO], 

Chevron, and one Shell project). For operation of the in situ projects, it is assumed that all five projects will be under 

operation simultaneously. These estimates do not include two RD&D projects approved in 2012. 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-66 

of total population located in the designated oil shale development areas and associated 50-mi 

buffers in the three states (based on 2010 Census data and CEQ Guidelines). 

 The potential environmental justice impacts described in Section 4.13 and summarized in 

this section are for hypothetical individual commercial oil shale projects. These represent the 

types of impacts that could occur as a result of development on lands identified as available for 

application for commercial leasing under Alternative 1. 

 Since oil shale development projects and ancillary power plant and housing 

developments would lead to rapid population growth in many of the communities in each ROI, it 

is possible that social disruption could occur, leading to the undermining of local community 

social structures with contrasting beliefs and value systems among the local population and 

in-migrants and, consequently, to a range of changes in social and community life, including 

increases in crime, alcoholism, drug use, and so forth. Impacts on property values of property 

owned by minority and low-income individuals would depend on the range of alternate uses of 

specific land parcels, current property values, and the perceived value of costs (traffic 

congestion; noise and dust pollution; and visual, air quality, and EMF effects) and benefits 

(infrastructure upgrades, employment opportunities, and local tax revenues) associated with 

proximity to oil shalerelated facilities. 

 Each technology would produce surface disturbance, fugitive dust, vehicle emissions, and 

visible activity that could generate visual impacts. Emissions associated with construction 

activities would consist primarily of particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10), criteria pollutants, 

VOCs, CO2, and certain HAPs released from heavy construction equipment and vehicle exhaust. 

Because of the limited availability of surface water and groundwater, the amount of water 

needed in commercial oil shale projects, power plants and coal mines (if needed), and associated 

population growth would mean that additional water resources would be needed. Oil shale 

facilities might impact certain animals or vegetation types that may be of cultural or religious 

significance to certain population groups or that form the basis for subsistence agriculture. 

Similarly, land used for these facilities that has additional economic uses might affect access to 

resources by low-income and minority population groups. 

 Given the location of environmental justice populations in each state, construction and 

operation of oil shale facilities, power plants and coal mines (if needed), and employer-provided 

housing could produce impacts that could be experienced disproportionately by minority and 

low-income populations. Of particular importance would be social disruption impacts of large 

increases in population on small rural communities, the undermining of local community social 

structures, and the resulting deterioration in quality of life. The impacts of facility operations on 

air and water quality and on the demand for water in the region could also be important. Land 

use and visual impacts might be significant depending on the location of land parcels for oil 

shale projects and the associated power plant and housing facilities, their importance for 

subsistence, their cultural and religious significance, and alternate economic uses. Depending on 

the locations of low-income and minority populations, impacts could also occur with the 

development of transmission lines associated with power development and the supply of power 

to oil shale facilities in each state. 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-67 

6.1.1.13 Hazardous Materials and Waste Management 

 Under Alternative 1, a total of 2,017,741 acres of public land would remain available 

within Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming for application for leasing for commercial development of 

oil shale. There would not be any hazardous material or waste management concerns associated 

with the identification of the availability of this land for this use. Impacts related to hazardous 

materials and wastes could occur during future development of commercial oil shale projects 

within areas identified in Alternative 1 as available for application for commercial leasing. 

Such impacts are generally independent of location but would be unique to the technology 

combinations used for oil shale development. However, hazardous materials and wastes are 

similar for some of the ancillary support activities that would be required for development of any 

oil shale facility regardless of the technology used. These include the impacts from development 

or expansion of support facilities such as employer-provided housing, transmission or 

transportation infrastructure, and power plants. 

 Hazardous materials and wastes could be used and generated during both the construction 

and operation of commercial oil shale facilities and supporting infrastructure (e.g., power plants). 

Hazardous materials impacts associated with project construction would be minimal and limited 

to the hazardous materials typically utilized in construction, such as fuels, lubricating oils, 

hydraulic fluids, glycol-based coolants and solvents, adhesives, and corrosion control coatings. 

Construction-related wastes could include landscape wastes from clearing and grading of the 

construction sites, and other wastes typically associated with construction, none of which are 

expected to be hazardous (Section 4.14.1). 

 During project operations, hazardous materials could be utilized, and a variety of wastes 

(some hazardous) could be generated. Hazardous materials used include fuels, solvents, 

corrosion control coatings, flammable fuel gases, and herbicides (for vegetation clearing and 

management at facilities or along ROWs). The types and amounts of hazardous waste generated 

during operations will depend on the specific design of the commercial oil shale project (surface 

or subsurface mining, surface retorting, in situ processes). Waste materials produced during 

operations may include spent shale, waste engine fuels and lubricants, pyrolysis water, 

flammable gases, volatile and flammable organic liquids, and heavier-molecular-weight organic 

compounds (Section 4.14.1). 

 Because the use of hazardous materials and the generation of wastes are directly related 

to the specific design of a commercial oil shale project, it is not possible to quantify projectrelated impacts of these materials. Under Alternative 1, individual facilities could be located 

anywhere within the area identified as available for leasing, pending project review and 

authorization. Accidental releases of the hazardous materials or wastes could affect natural 

resources (such as water quality or wildlife) and human health and safety (see Section 4.15) at 

locations where the individual projects are sited within the Alternative 1 potential lease areas. 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-68 

6.1.1.14 Health and Safety 

 The identification of 2,017,741 acres of public land as being available for application for 

leasing and the amendment of land use plans to identify these areas does not result in any direct 

health and safety concerns. However, a number of health and safety concerns would be 

associated with the commercial development of oil shale projects within the areas in 

Alternative 1 identified as available for commercial leasing. The level of health and safety 

impacts would be mainly dependent on the extent of oil shale development, the extent of health 

and safety precautions imposed by the operators, and the design of each project (as related to the 

level of air and water emissions associated with a facility). 

 Potential health and safety impacts from the construction and operation of commercial 

oil shale projects could be associated with the following activities: (1) constructing project 

facilities and associated infrastructure, (2) mining (if processing is not in situ) the oil shale; 

(3) obtaining and upgrading the crude oil, either through surface retorting or in situ processing; 

(4) transporting construction and raw materials to the upgrading facility and transporting product 

from the facility; and (5) exposing the general public to water and air contamination associated 

with oil shale development. Hazards from oil shale development (summarized in Table 4.15-1) 

could include physical injury from construction, oil shale processing, and vehicle transportation 

accidents and exposure to fugitive dust and hazardous materials, such as retort emissions and 

industrial chemicals (Section 4.15). Health and safety impacts would be largely restricted to the 

immediate workforce of each facility. Accidents could also affect members of the general public 

who could be present in the immediate vicinity of an accident (e.g., project-related truck accident 

on a public road, recreational users in areas adjacent to the project lease area). 

 Workers could be exposed to different hazards depending on the type of jobs they do. 

Workers at all types of oil shale development facilities could be exposed to high noise levels, 

resulting in hearing loss. The health and safety of miners could be impacted by injuries or deaths 

due to accidents (e.g., highwall bank failures or cave-ins, uncontrolled explosions, accidents 

involving heavy machinery), or heat exposures. Workers operating surface retorts also could be 

injured or die due to accidental explosions, heat stress, or accidents involving heavy machinery. 

Physical hazards from well-drilling, the use of explosives, and the operation of heavy equipment 

would be present for in situ workers. 

 Serious and often fatal lung disease in miners has been associated with inhalation of 

particulates and volatile compounds containing carcinogenic PAHs; such exposures could be 

limited by adherence to applicable occupational health and safety standards. Lung disease caused 

by inhalation of emissions from the retorting process would also be of concern for retort 

operators, although these exposures are generally lower than those associated with mining. For 

workers at facilities using in situ recovery techniques, hazards associated with inhalation of 

emissions would also be expected to be lower than those associated with mining. 

 Estimates of expected injuries and fatalities can be made on the basis of numbers of 

employees and the type of work. Based on the numbers of employees projected to be needed for 

construction and operation of oil shale facilities, there would statistically be less than 1 death and 

about 125 injuries per year expected per facility during construction activities, and less than 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-69 

1 death and less than 100 injuries per year expected per facility during operations (NSC 2006). A 

comprehensive facility health and safety plan and worker safety training will be required as part 

of the plan of development for every proposed commercial oil shale project. 

 Health and safety concerns are largely independent of the location of oil shale 

development facilities. However, the health and safety impacts on the general public from 

emissions from these facilities would depend both on the specific characteristics and level of 

emissions, and on the distance of the emissions source from population centers. The level of air 

and water emissions would be regulated under required permits. Potential impacts on the general 

public from emissions would be assessed in future site-specific NEPA and permitting 

documentation. 

6.1.2 Impacts of Alternative 2, Proposed Plan Amendment 

 Under Alternative 2, the BLM would amend eight BLM land use plans to designate 

676,967 acres of public land as available for application for leasing for commercial development 

of oil shale within the most geologically prospective oil shale areas in Colorado, Utah, and 

Wyoming (see Figures 2.3.3-4, 2.3.3-5, and 2.3.3-6, respectively). (See Section 2.3.3.1 for a 

complete description of Alternative 2.) These lands include 26,259 acres in Colorado, 

357,409 acres in Utah, and 293,299 acres in Wyoming (Table 2.3.3-1). These public lands 

comprise 607,385 acres of BLM-administered lands and 69,582 acres of split estate lands. 

Specific land use plan amendments are provided in Appendix C. 

 Lands other than those 676,967 acres to be designated as available for application for 

leasing for commercial development of oil shale under Alternative 2 that are currently open 

would be closed to such leasing and development, that is, the difference between 2,017,741 and 

676,967 acres. As described below, the potential impacts on lands currently available for 

application for leasing for commercial development but considered in Alternative 2 for closure to 

such leasing and development would not be adverse, because no leasing or development would 

take place and, unless otherwise discussed, any benefit would accrue in proportion to the number 

of acres closed. 

 The eight land use plans that would be amended are as follows: 

• Colorado 

 Glenwood Springs RMP (BLM 1988, as amended by the 2006 Roan 

Plateau Plan Amendment [BLM 2006i, 2007c, 2008a]) 

 Grand Junction RMP (BLM 1987) 

 White River RMP (BLM 1997a, as amended by the 2006 Roan Plateau 

Plan Amendment [BLM 2006i, 2007c, 2008a]) 

• Utah 

 Price RMP (BLM 2008d) 

 Vernal RMP (BLM 2008e) 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-70 

• Wyoming 

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

Coordinated Activity Plan [BLM 2006a]) 

 Kemmerer RMP (BLM 2010d) 

 Rawlins RMP (BLM 2008f) 

 As discussed in Section 2.3.3.1, these land use plans would be amended under 

Alternative 2 specifically to (1) designate lands within these most geologically prospective 

areas as available or not available for application for leasing and (2) identify any technology 

restrictions. Specific land use plan amendments are provided in Appendix C. 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 or not available for application for 

commercial leasing in the three-state study area, but there may be impacts on land values. 

However, the development of commercial oil shale projects on lands available for application for 

commercial leasing by these land use plan amendments would have impacts on these resources. 

In addition, Alternative 2 could include the same level of development of the RD&D projects as 

described in Section 6.1.1 for Alternative 1. The effects of the RD&Ds under this alternative 

would be the same as those under Alternative 3 (Section 6.1.3). The following sections describe 

the impacts of Alternative 2 on the environment and the socioeconomic setting of the areas 

identified as available for application for leasing under this alternative. The impacts described 

would not be expected to occur with respect to the lands identified as not available for 

application for commercial oil shale leasing, apart from possible indirect impacts on such lands, 

from activities that might occur on lands identified as available. 

 In general, potential impacts of future commercial development on specific resources 

located within the 676,967 acres cannot be quantified at this time, because key information about 

the location of projects, the technologies employed, the project size or production level, and 

development time lines are unknown. While it is not possible to quantify the impacts of future 

project development, it is possible to make observations and draw conclusions on the basis of 

certain lands being available for application for leasing and their overlap with specific resources. 

The following sections identify the potential impacts that could accompany subsequent 

commercial oil shale leasing, many of which might be successfully avoided or mitigated 

depending on site- and project-specific factors and future regulations that would guide leasing 

actions. 

6.1.2.1 Land Use 

 Alternative 2 would amend eight land use plans and would identify 676,967 acres of 

public land in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming as available for application for leasing for 

commercial development of oil shale. The amendment of the land use plans is expected to have 

no direct impacts on land uses, although there may be some impact on land values. The 

identification of these lands does not authorize or approve any ground-disturbing activities that 

could affect existing land uses. Existing land uses could, however, be adversely affected by 

future commercial oil shale development on these lands. 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-71 

 The nature of the impacts of Alternative 2 on land uses would be the same as those listed 

under Alternative 1 above, with exceptions listed below. Alternative 2 removes from 

consideration for leasing lands with sensitive resources that have been identified in current BLM 

land use plans, including all existing ACECs. 

 The following are areas in which the impacts of Alternative 2 could differ from those 

described for Alternative 1 in Section 6.1.1.1: 

• In the Piceance Basin, Alternative 2 would have less of an impact on oil and 

gas operations because considerably fewer acres of potentially valuable oil 

and gas deposits in a rapidly developing area would be available for 

application for commercial oil shale development. 

• Alternative 2 removes from application for leasing core or priority sagegrouse habitat in Colorado and occupied sage-grouse habitat Utah and 

approximately an additional 44,312 acres of ACECs that are not closed to 

mineral entry (Table 6.1.1-1). No designated ACECs are available for 

application for commercial leasing in Alternative 2. 

• Lands available for application for leasing under Alternative 1 contain all or 

portions of areas that have been recognized by the BLM in Colorado and Utah 

as LWC. Table 6.1.1-2 lists these areas. Alternative 2 excludes all of the 

approximately 88,234 acres of these LWC within the study area that are 

available for application for leasing under Alternative 1. 

• Under the terms of the RD&D program, the federal government has a 

commitment to grant the RD&D companies leases for commercial 

development within the PRLAs, provided all conditions of the program are 

met (see Section 23 of the RD&D leases, which allows conversion of the 

RD&D leases to commercial leases, including the PRLAs, if the BLM 

determines that commercial operations can be conducted without unacceptable 

environmental consequences). As a result, all lands within the PRLAs would 

be available for issuance of commercial leases to the original RD&D 

companies under all alternatives. The federal government is not under an 

obligation to grant leases for commercial development within these areas to 

any other applicants. 

• Under this alternative, of the 32,000 acres included in the existing RD&D 

leases, if current leaseholders relinquished those leases, only 6,612 acres 

would be available for future leasing under the resource exclusions that define 

Alternative 2. Specifically, portions of the areas associated with the Chevron, 

American Shale Oil, and Shell Site 2 RD&D projects would be excluded from 

subsequent leasing. In addition, the entire PRLAs for Shell Sites 1 and 3 

would be excluded. The 6,612 acres that would be available are those 

identified within the RD&D lease boundaries in Figures 2.3.3-4 and 2.3.3-5. 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-72 

• Several wild horse HMAs overlap with the lands identified as available for 

application for commercial leasing, including the PiceanceEast Douglas 

Creek HMA in Colorado (15,431acres); the Hill Creek HMA (6,273 acres); 

and the Adobe Town (33,373 acres), Little Colorado (87,359acres), Salt Wells 

Creek (48,293acres), and White Mountain (38,090acres) HMAs in Wyoming 

(Figure 6.1.2-1). Any oil shale development that occurs in HMAs would need 

to protect wild horses and burros under the Wild Free-Roaming Horse 

and Burro Act of 1971. 

6.1.2.2 Soil and Geologic Resources 

 Under Alternative 2, land use plans in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming would be amended 

to designate 676,967 acres available for commercial oil shale leasing (Section 2.3.3.1). Soil and 

geologic resources could be affected by future commercial oil shale development on these lands. 

 Construction-related activities could directly disturb surface and subsurface soils during 

clearing and grading activities and construction of project facilities and infrastructure. This 

disturbance could include soil disturbance, removal, and compaction, and disturbed areas would 

be more susceptible to the effects of precipitation and wind-driven erosion (see Section 4.3.1). 

Surface and subsurface mining activities during project operations would directly disturb 

geologic resources. Erosion of exposed soils could lead to increased sedimentation of nearby 

water bodies and to the generation of fugitive dust. Soils in project areas would remain 

susceptible to erosion until completion of construction, mining, and oil shale processing 

activities, and site stabilization and reclamation (e.g., revegetation of pipeline ROWs, surface 

mine reclamation). Impacts on soil and geologic resources would be limited to the specific 

project location as well as areas in which associated off-lease infrastructure (such as access 

roads, utility ROWs, and power plants) would be located. For any project, the erosion potential 

of the soils will be a direct function of the lease and project location and of the soil 

characteristics, vegetative cover, and topography (i.e., slope) at that location. Development in 

areas that have erosive soils and steep slopes (e.g., in excess of 25%) could lead to serious 

erosion problems at those locations. 

 Under Alternative 2, project-related impacts could occur wherever individual projects are 

located within the 676,967 acres identified for application for leasing under this alternative. Utah 

would have the most land (357,409 acres) and Colorado the least land (26,259 acres) where 

commercial oil shale development could affect soil and geologic resources. 

6.1.2.3 Paleontological Resources 

 Under Alternative 2, land use plans in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming would be amended 

to designate 676,967 acres available for commercial oil shale leasing (Section 2.3.3.1). 

Paleontological resources within these areas could be adversely affected if leasing and 

subsequent commercial development occur. Of the acreage designated under Alternative 2, a 

total of 603,729acres (about 89% of the 676,967 acres that would remain available under 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-73 

FIGURE 6.1.2-1 Lands Available for Application for Oil Shale Leasing under Alternative 2 in 

Relation to Wild Horse and Burro Herd Management Areas 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-74 

Alternative 2) have been identified as overlying geologic formations having a high potential to 

contain important paleontological resources (Murphey and Daitch 2007). Approximately 

24,926 of these acres are in the Piceance Basin; 316,308 acres are in the Uinta Basin; and 

262,495 acres are in the Green River and Washakie Basins. All existing ACECs, some of which 

have been identified for their paleontological values, would not be available for application for 

leasing under this alternative, and therefore the paleontological resources in these areas would 

not be affected under this alternative. 

 Impacts from oil shale development 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 

areas, 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. However, oil shale 

development could also result in scientifically beneficial discoveries that may not have otherwise 

been made. These impacts and the application of mitigation measures to reduce or eliminate 

them are discussed in Section 4.4. 

6.1.2.4 Water Resources 

 Under Alternative 2, land use plans in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming would be amended 

to designate 676,967 acres as available for commercial oil shale leasing (Section 2.3.3.1). The 

acreage available for application for leasing in this alternative specifically excludes lands 

identified in BLM land use plans as sensitive for numerous different resources (see 

Table 2.3.3-1). Excluding these lands from application for leasing would provide protection from 

direct impacts from oil shale development on water resources found on these lands. However, 

indirect effects are still possible. In those areas that are available for application for leasing in 

both Alternatives 1 and 2, the potential impacts would be the same as described for Alternative 1 

(Section 6.1.1.4). 

 The total stream miles within the four oil shale basins is approximately 753 mi. 

Alternative 2 contains approximately 441 mi of these perennial streams (see Table 6.1.1-3). 

 The assessment of impacts on water resources under Alternative 2 has the same 

limitations as those referenced under Alternative 1 (Table 6.1.1-4). Without site-specific 

information regarding location and type of technology to be employed, it is not possible to assess 

the overall impacts of this alternative. 

6.1.2.5 Air Quality 

 Under Alternative 2, a total of 676,967 acres of public land would be made available 

within Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming for application for leasing for commercial development of 

oil shale (Section 2.3.3.1). Of the acreage designated under Alternative 2, about 26,259 acres are 

in the Piceance Basin, Colorado; 357,409 acres in the Uinta Basin, Utah; and 293,299 acres in 

the Green River and Washakie Basins, Wyoming. Air resources in the three states would not 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-75 

be affected by this land use plan amendment. Air resources in and around these areas could, 

however, be affected by potential future commercial oil shale development within the basin 

areas. Under Alternative 2, local, short-term air quality impacts could be incurred as a result of 

(1) PM releases (fugitive dust, diesel exhaust) during construction activities such as site clearing 

and grading in preparation for facility construction, and (2) exhaust emissions (NOx, CO, PM, 

VOC, and SO2) from construction equipment and vehicles (see Section 4.6). These potential 

impacts would be of short duration and largely limited to specific project locations and the 

immediately adjacent areas. Similar short-term impacts could also occur in other areas in which 

project-related electric transmission lines, oil pipelines, transportation ROWs, and other 

infrastructure would be located and developed. 

 Similar but longer term impacts on local air quality could occur during normal project 

operations such as mining and processing of the oil shale. Processing activities could also result 

in regional impacts on air quality and AQRVs, such as visibility and acid deposition, which 

could extend beyond the lease areas identified under Alternative 2. These regional impacts would 

be associated with operational releases of NOx, CO, PM, and other pollutants (VOCs and SO2) 

during oil shale processing (Section 4.6). In addition, ozone precursors of NOx and VOC from 

oil shale development could exacerbate wintertime high-ozone occurrences already prevalent in 

the study area. Operational releases of certain HAPs (e.g., benzene, toluene, and formaldehyde) 

as well as diesel PM could also affect on-site workers and nearby residences, but these impacts 

would be localized to the immediate project location and subject to further analysis prior to 

project implementation. 

 During all phases of oil shale development, GHG emissions of primarily CO2 and lesser 

amounts of CH4 and N2O from combustion sources could contribute to climate change to some 

extent. 

 If development of oil shale requires expansion of capacity of existing electric power 

plants, or the construction and operation of new electric power plants off-lease, those would also 

have longer term impacts on regional air quality. Table 6.1.6-3 presents a summary of the 

emissions from coal-fired electric power plants. 

6.1.2.6 Noise 

 Under Alternative 2, approximately 676,967 acres of public land would be made 

available within Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming for application for leasing for commercial 

development of oil shale. Ambient noise levels would not be affected by this action. However, 

ambient noise levels could be affected by future commercial development of oil shale. Under 

Alternative 2, local, short-term changes in ambient noise levels could be incurred during the 

construction, operation, and reclamation of oil shale projects (see Section 4.7.1). Project-related 

increases in noise levels could disturb or displace wildlife and recreational users in nearby areas. 

Noise impacts on wildlife and recreational users are discussed in Sections 4.8.1.3 and 4.2.1.4, 

respectively. 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-76 

 Increased noise levels could result from the operation of construction equipment (graders, 

excavators, and haul trucks) and from any blasting activities that might occur. Increases in noise 

levels during operations could be associated with mining and oil shale–processing activities and 

could be more long-term than construction-related noise. These types of impacts would be 

largely limited to specific project locations and the immediate surrounding area. Similar shortterm impacts could also occur in other areas where electric transmission lines, oil pipelines, 

transportation ROWs, and other infrastructure would be located, developed, and operated. For 

example, ambient noise levels could increase in the immediate vicinity of any pipeline pump 

stations and be affected by project-related vehicular traffic at the project site and related 

locations (such as access roads to the site). 

 Construction-related noise levels could exceed EPA guidelines and/or Colorado 

regulations at some distances from the construction sites (there are currently no state 

guidelines/regulations for Utah or Wyoming; however, local jurisdictions have noise controls 

pertaining to construction).Similarly, operational noise associated with mining and retort 

activities could, in the absence of mitigation, exceed EPA guidelines and/or Colorado regulations 

at some project locations. Noise generated as a result of project-related vehicular traffic is not 

expected to exceed EPA guideline and/or Colorado regulation levels, except for short durations 

and in areas close to roads or traffic. 

 In the absence of lease- and project-specific information, it is not possible at the level of 

this PEIS to identify the duration and magnitude of any project-related changes in noise levels. 

Changes in ambient noise levels due to project development could occur wherever a project is 

located within the 676,967 acres identified for application for leasing under Alternative 2. 

6.1.2.7 Ecological Resources 

 Under Alternative 2, a total of 676,967 acres of public land would be made available 

within Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming for application for leasing for commercial development of 

oil shale. These lands support a wide variety of biota and their habitats (Section 3.7). Ecological 

resources in these areas would not be affected by the identification of lands available for 

application for leasing or by amendment of land use plans to incorporate these lease areas. 

However, ecological resources in and around these areas could be affected by future commercial 

development of oil shale in these areas. The following sections describe the potential impacts on 

ecological resources that may result from commercial oil shale development within the areas 

identified as available for application for commercial leasing under Alternative 2. 

 The magnitude of the impact on specific ecological resources that could be affected by 

commercial oil shale development in areas identified as available for application for commercial 

leasing in Alternative 2 would depend on the specific location of the commercial oil shale 

projects as well as on specific project design. 

 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-77 

6.1.2.7.1 Aquatic Resources. Under Alternative 2, approximately 676,967 acres of 

public land would be made available within Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming for application for 

leasing for commercial development of oil shale. There are no impacts on aquatic habitats 

associated with this land use designation. Impacts could result, however, from post-lease 

construction and operation as described in Section 4.8.1.1. These impacts would be considered in 

project-specific NEPA analyses that would be conducted at the lease (including conversion from 

any RD&D to a commercial lease) and development phases of projects. 

 Potential impacts on aquatic resources from oil shale development could result primarily 

from increased turbidity and sedimentation, changes to water table levels, degradation of surface 

water quality (e.g., alteration of water temperature, salinity, and nutrient levels), release of toxic 

substances to surface water, and increased public access to aquatic habitats as described in 

Section 4.8.1.1. As described in Section 4.8.1.1, there is a potential for development and 

production activities in upland areas to affect surface water and groundwater beyond the area 

where surface disturbance or water withdrawals are occurring. Consequently, the analysis here 

considers the potential for impacts in waterways up to 2 mi beyond the boundary of the lands 

that would be allocated for potential leasing under this alternative. However, as project 

development activities become more distant from waterways, the potential for negative effects 

on aquatic resources is reduced. For the analysis of potential impacts on each of the alternatives 

considered in the PEIS, it was assumed that the potential for negative impacts on aquatic 

resources increases as the area potentially affected (i.e., the area that would be considered for 

leasing) increases and as the number and extent of waterways within a 2-mi zone surrounding 

those areas increases. 

 Under Alternative 2, 16 perennial streams and about 51 mi of perennial stream habitat 

within the Green River, Piceance, Uinta, and Washakie Basins are directly overlain by areas that 

would be potentially available for oil shale development. When an additional 2-mi zone 

surrounding these areas is considered, there are 38 perennial streams and about 440.6 mi of 

perennial stream habitat that could be affected by future development activities (Table 6.1.1-4). 

The development of commercial oil shale projects in the areas identified under Alternative 2 

could affect aquatic biota and their habitats during project construction and operations, thereby 

resulting in short- and/or long-term changes (disturbance or loss) in the abundance and 

distribution of affected biota and their habitats. As described in Section 4.8.1.1, impacts from 

water quality degradation and water depletions could affect resources not only in areas within or 

immediately adjacent to leased areas but also in areas farther downstream in affected watersheds. 

The nature and magnitude of impacts, as well as the specific resources affected, would depend 

on the location of the areas where project construction and facilities occur, the aquatic resources 

present in those areas, and the mitigation measures implemented. 

 The types of aquatic habitats and organisms that could be impacted by future 

development in the vicinity of the Piceance, Uinta, Green River, and Washakie Basins are 

described in Section 3.7.1, and some of these aquatic habitats could contain federally listed 

endangered fish, state-listed or BLM-designated sensitive species (Section 3.7.4), and other 

native fish and invertebrate species that could be negatively affected by development. However, 

because most of the areas within the oil shale basins that contain known sensitive aquatic 

habitats and species would be excluded from consideration for leasing via land use plan 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-78 

amendments under this alternative, the potential impacts on aquatic resources are likely to be 

considerably smaller under Alternative 2 than under Alternative 1. Specific impacts would 

depend greatly upon the locations selected, methods of extraction used, and mitigation measures 

implemented by future projects. Project-specific NEPA analyses would be conducted prior to 

any future leasing (including conversion from any RD&D to a commercial lease) and 

development decisions to evaluate potential impacts in greater detail. 

6.1.2.7.2 Plant Communities and Habitats. Under Alternative 2, approximately 

676,967 acres of public land would be made available within Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming for 

application for leasing for commercial development of oil shale. There would be no impacts on 

plant communities and habitats associated with identifying lands as available for application for 

commercial leasing. Impacts could result, however, from post-lease construction and operation 

as described in Section 4.8.1.2. These impacts would be considered in greater detail in projectspecific NEPA analyses that would be conducted at the lease (including conversion from any 

RD&D to a commercial lease) and development phases of projects. 

 Areas identified as available for application for commercial leasing under Alternative 2 

support a wide variety of plant communities and habitats (see Section 3.7.2). These areas include 

approximately 13,227 acres that are currently identified in BLM land use plans for the protection 

of floodplains, riparian habitats, and special status plant species. Direct and indirect impacts on 

plant communities and habitats could be incurred in available areas during project construction 

and operation, extending over a period of several decades (especially within facility and 

infrastructure footprints) (see Section 4.8.1.2). Some impacts, such as habitat loss, may continue 

beyond the termination of shale oil production. 

 Direct impacts would include the destruction of vegetation and habitat during land 

clearing on the lease site and where ancillary facilities, such as access roads, pipelines, 

transmission lines, employer-provided housing, and new power plants, would be located. Soils 

disturbed during construction would be susceptible to the introduction and establishment of 

non-native plant communities during reclamation of project areas and create a source of future 

colonization and subsequent degradation of adjacent undisturbed areas. Plant communities and 

habitats could also be adversely affected by changes in water quality or availability, resulting in 

plant mortality or reduced growth, with subsequent changes in community composition and 

structure and declines in habitat quality. Indirect impacts on terrestrial and wetland habitats on 

or off the project site could result from land clearing and exposed soil; soil compaction; and 

changes in topography, surface drainage, and infiltration characteristics. These impacts could 

lead to changes in the abundance and distribution of plant species and changes in community 

structure, as well the introduction or spread of invasive species. 

 Affected plant communities and habitats could incur short- and/or long-term changes in 

species composition, abundance, and distribution. While many impacts would be localized 

(occurring within construction and operation footprints and in the immediate surrounding area), 

the introduction of invasive species could affect much larger areas. The nature and magnitude of 

these impacts, as well as the communities or habitats affected, would depend on the location of 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-79 

the areas where project construction and facilities would occur, the plant communities and 

habitats present in those areas, and the mitigation measures implemented to address impacts. 

 The areas identified as available for application for commercial leasing under 

Alternative 2 potentially include locations outside of ACECs that support oil shale endemic plant 

species. Local populations of oil shale endemics, which typically occur as small scattered 

populations on a limited number of sites, could be reduced or lost as a result of oil shale 

development activities. Establishment and long-term survival of these species on reclaimed land 

may be difficult. 

 No ACECs are included in the lands available under this alternative. Therefore direct 

impacts on sensitive plant species and plant communities within ACECs would not occur. 

However, three ACECs are located adjacent to the Alternative 2 footprint: the Duck Creek 

ACEC located within the Piceance Basin and the Pariette Wetlands and Lower Green River 

ACECs located within the Uinta Basin. Each of these ACECs includes rare plant species and/or 

rare or important plant communities. Indirect impacts on these species and communities could 

occur. 

 Seventeen ACECs with rare plant species and/or rare or important plant communities are 

located near (within 5 mi) the Alternative 2 footprint: Upper Greasewood Creek (3.5 mi), Lower 

Greasewood Creek (4.9 mi), South Cathedral Bluffs (4.4 mi), Dudley Bluffs (0.6 mi), Ryan 

Gulch (1.3 mi), East Douglas Creek (4.4 mi), Magpie Gulch (3.8 mi), Deer Gulch (1.8 mi), 

White River Riparian (3.5 mi), Trapper Creek/Northwater Creek (1.3 mi), East Fork Parachute 

Creek (4.9 mi), all near the Piceance Basin; Raven Ridge (4.9 mi), Oil Spring Mountain (4.4 mi), 

Nine Mile Canyon (2.7 mi), and White River Riparian (0.8 mi), all near the Uinta Basin; Special 

Status Plant Species (0.5 mi) and Greater Red Creek (3.9 mi), both near the Green River Basin; 

and Special Status Plant Species (2.2 mi) and Hells Canyon (3.2 mi), both near the Washakie 

Basin. Indirect impacts on the sensitive species or communities within these ACECs could occur. 

Impacts would generally decrease with increasing distance. 

6.1.2.7.3 Wildlife. Under Alternative 2, a total of 676,967 acres of public land would be 

made available within Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming for application for leasing for commercial 

development of oil shale. While no impacts on wildlife species associated with the identification 

of lands as available for application for commercial leasing are expected, impacts could result 

from post-lease construction and operation as described in Section 4.8.1.3. These impacts would 

be considered in greater detail in project-specific NEPA analyses that would be conducted at the 

lease (including conversion from any RD&D to a commercial lease) and development phases of 

projects. The areas available for application for leasing support a diverse array of wildlife and 

habitats (see Section 3.7.3). Alternative 2 excludes lands that were excluded under Alternative C 

in the 2008 OSTS PEIS (BLM 2008k) on the basis of oil and gas stipulations at the time. Various 

stipulations included in the BLM RMPs provide protection for different wildlife species. These 

stipulations include lands designated as (1) NSO (where the BLM does not allow long-term 

ground-disturbing activities [i.e., with an impact that would last longer than 2 years]), (2) CSU 

(where the BLM places special restrictions, including shifting a ground-disturbing activity by 

more than 200 m from the proposed location to another location to protect a specific resource 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-80 

such as a raptor nest), and (3) TL (where the BLM may allow specified activities but not during 

certain sensitive seasons such as when raptors are nesting or when big game are on their winter 

ranges). No additional acreage of protected habitat has resulted from updates to oil and gas 

stipulations since the preparation of the 2008 OSTS PEIS in areas available for application for 

oil shale leasing in Alternative 2. 

 Areas identified in Alternative 2 as available for application for commercial leasing 

overlap with areas identified by state natural resource agencies as seasonal habitat for big game 

species. These areas include mule deer and elk winter and summer ranges (Figures 6.1.2-2 and 

6.1.2-3, respectively). Table 6.1.2-1 presents the acreage of these habitats (as identified by state 

resource agencies) that occur in the Alternative 2 lease areas and that could be affected by future 

commercial oil shale development. 

 Impacts on wildlife from commercial oil shale projects (see Section 4.8.1.3) in 

Alternative 2 potential lease areas could occur in a number of ways and would be related to 

(1) habitat loss, alteration, or fragmentation; (2) disturbance and displacement of biota; 

(3) mortality; (4) exposure to hazardous materials; and (5) increase in human access. These could 

result in changes in species distribution and abundance; changes in habitat use; changes in 

behavior; collisions with structures or vehicles; changes in predator populations; and chronic or 

acute toxicity from hydrocarbons, herbicides, or other contaminant exposures. 

 Wildlife could also be affected by human activities not directly associated with the oil 

shale project or its workforce but instead associated with the increased access to BLMadministered lands that had previously received little use. The construction of new access roads 

or improvements to old access roads could lead to increased human access into the area. 

Potential impacts associated with increased access include (1) the disturbance of wildlife from 

human activities, including an increase in legal and illegal take and an increase of invasive 

vegetation, (2) an increase in the incidence of fires, and (3) increased runoff that could adversely 

affect riparian or other wetland areas important to wildlife. 

 The potential for impacts on wildlife and their habitats from commercial oil shale 

development is directly related to the amount of land disturbance that would occur with a 

commercial project (including its ancillary facilities, such as power plants and utility and 

pipeline ROWs), the duration and timing of construction and operation periods, and the habitat 

affected by development (i.e., the location of the project). Indirect effects, such as impacts 

resulting from the erosion of disturbed land surfaces, water depletions, contamination, and 

disturbance and harassment, are also considered. Their magnitude is also considered to be 

proportional to the amount of land disturbance. 

 6.1.2.7.4 Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species. Under Alternative 2, 

approximately 676,967 acres of public land would be available within Colorado, Utah, and 

Wyoming for application for leasing for commercial development of oil shale. Under this 

alternative, oil shale development would be excluded from core or priority habitats for the 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-81 

FIGURE 6.1.2-2 Lands Available for Application for Oil Shale Leasing under Alternative 2 in 

Relation to the Summer and Winter Ranges of the Mule Deer 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-82 

FIGURE 6.1.2-3 Lands Available for Application for Oil Shale Leasing under Alternative 2 in 

Relation to the Summer and Winter Ranges of the Elk 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-83 

TABLE 6.1.2-1 State-Identified Elk and Mule Deer Habitat 

Present in the Alternative 2 Oil Shale Lease Areas 

Area of Habitat (acres) 

Habitat Description Colorado Utah Wyoming Total 

 

Mule deer 

Winter habitat 44,869 122,754 59,843 227,466 

Summer habitat 19,558 0 NAa 19,558 

 

Elk 

Winter habitat 46,756 129,498 59,092 235,346 

Summer habitat 19,565 0 NA 19,565 

a NA = data not available. 

greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) in Colorado and Utah.5 To make oil shale 

development consistent with current greater sage-grouse management policies, lands available 

for application for oil shale leasing under Alternative 2 have been revised to include greater 

sage-grouse core areas in Wyoming. Per WO IM 2012-043, Greater Sage-grouse Interim 

Management Policies and Procedures, potential oil shale development in Wyoming would 

adhere to Wyoming Governor’s Executive Order 2011-5, Greater Sage-grouse Core Area 

Protection. This E.O. presents a strategy for conserving greater sage-grouse core habitats and has 

been acknowledged by the USFWS as an adequate regulatory mechanism for the conservation of 

greater sage-grouse (See Appendix K for greater sage-grouse policies). There would be no 

impacts on threatened and endangered species associated with identifying lands as available for 

application for commercial leasing. Impacts could result, however, from post-lease construction 

and operation as described in Section 4.8.1.4. These impacts would be considered in projectspecific NEPA analyses that would be conducted at the lease (including conversion from any 

RD&D to a commercial lease) and development phases of projects. 

 Under Alternative 2, 179 of the 202 federal candidate, BLM-designated sensitive, and 

state-listed species listed in Table 6.1.2-2 and 19 of the 22 federally listed threatened or 

endangered species listed in Table 6.1.2-3 could occur in areas that are available for application 

for leasing. This determination is based on records of occurrence in project counties of Colorado, 

 

 

5 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 data 

that best represents greater sage-grouse habitat in Utah that is used in this PEIS is the UDWR occupied habitat 

dataset. 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-84 

TABLE 6.1.2-2 Potential Effects of Commercial Oil Shale Development under Alternative 2 on 

BLM-Designated Sensitive Species, Federal Candidates for Listing, State-Listed Species, and State 

Species of Special Concern 

Scientific Name Common Name Statusa

State and Counties within 

the Study Area in Which 

Species May Occur Potential for Effectb

 

Plants 

Abies concolor White fir WY-SC WY–Sweetwater Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area. 

 

Achnatherum 

swallenii 

Swallen 

mountainricegrass 

WY-SC WY–Lincoln, Sublette Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area. 

 

Amsonia jonesii Jones blue star BLM-S UT–Duchesne, Emery, 

Garfield, Grand, 

San Juan, Uintah, Wayne

No impact. Suitable habitat does not 

exist in the study area. Nearest 

occurrences are approximately 30 mi 

from the study area in Utah.

 

Androstephium 

breviflorum

Purple funnellilyWY-SC WY–Sweetwater Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Antennaria arcuata Meadow 

pussytoes

BLM-S; 

WY-SC

WY–Sublette No impact. Suitable habitat does not 

exist in the study area. Nearest 

occurrences are approximately 35 mi 

from the study area in Wyoming.

 

Aquilegia 

scopulorum var.

goodrichii 

Utah columbine BLM-S UT–Carbon, Duchesne, 

Emery, Grand, Uintah 

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Arabis vivariensis Park rockcress BLM-S UT–Uintah Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Artemisia biennis 

var. diffusa 

Mystery 

wormwood 

BLM-S; 

WY-SC

WY–Sweetwater Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Astragalus 

bisulcatus var.

haydenianus 

Hayden’s 

milkvetch 

WY-SC WY–Sweetwater, Uinta Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Astragalus 

calycosus var.

calycosus

King’s 

milkvetch 

WY-SC WY–Sweetwater, Uinta Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Astragalus coltonii 

var. moabensis

Moab milkvetch WY-SC WY–Sweetwater, Uinta Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Astragalus 

debequaeus

Debeque 

milkvetch

BLM-S CO–Garfield Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area. 

Quad-level occurrences are within 7 mi 

from the study area in Colorado. 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-85 

TABLE 6.1.2-2 (Cont.)

Scientific Name Common Name Statusa

State and Counties within 

the Study Area in Which 

Species May Occur Potential for Effectb

 

Plants (Cont.) 

Astragalus 

detritalis

Debris 

milkvetch

BLM-S CO–Rio Blanco; 

UT–Duchesne, Uintah

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area. 

Quad-level occurrences of this species 

intersect the study areas in Colorado and 

Utah.

 

Astragalus 

duchesnensis

Duchesne 

milkvetch

BLM-S CO–Rio Blanco; 

UT–Duchesne, Uintah

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area. 

Quad-level occurrences of this species 

intersect the study areas in Colorado and 

Utah.

 

Astragalus 

equisolensis 

Horseshoe 

milkvetch 

BLM-S UT–Uintah Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Astragalus 

hamiltonii 

Hamilton’s 

milkvetch 

BLM-S UT–Uintah Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Astragalus 

lentiginosus var.

salinus 

Sodaville 

milkvetch 

WY-SC WY–Lincoln, Uinta Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Astragalus 

musiniensis

Ferron 

milkvetch

BLM-S CO–Garfield; 

UT–Emery, Garfield, 

Grand, Wayne

No impact. Suitable habitat does not 

exist in the study area. Nearest 

occurrences are approximately 30 mi 

from the study area in Colorado.

 

Astragalus 

naturitensis

Naturita 

milkvetch

BLM-S CO–Garfield; 

UT–San Juan

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area. 

Quad-level occurrences are within 8 mi 

from the study area in Colorado. 

 

Astragalus 

paysonii

Payson’s 

milkvetch

WY-SC WY–Lincoln, Sublette Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Astragalus 

proimanthus 

Precocious 

milkvetch 

BLM-S; 

WY-SC

WY–Sweetwater Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area. 

Quad-level occurrences of this species 

intersect the study areas in Colorado and 

Wyoming.

 

Astragalus 

racemosus var.

treleasei 

Trelease’s 

racemose 

milkvetch 

BLM-S; 

WY-SC

WY–Sublette, Uinta Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area. 

Quad-level occurrences are within 6 mi 

from the study area in Wyoming. 

 

Atriplex falcata Sickle saltbush WY-SC WY–Sublette, 

Sweetwater, Uinta

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-86 

TABLE 6.1.2-2 (Cont.)

Scientific Name Common Name Statusa

State and Counties within 

the Study Area in Which 

Species May Occur Potential for Effectb

 

Plants (Cont.) 

Atriplex wolfii Wolf’s orache WY-SC WY–Sweetwater Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Boechera 

crandallii 

Crandall’s 

rockcress 

WY-SC WY–Sweetwater Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Boechera selbyi Selby’s 

rockcress 

WY-SC WY–Sweetwater Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Bolophyta ligulata Ligulate 

feverfew

BLM-S CO–Rio Blanco Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area. 

Quad-level occurrences are within 6 mi 

from the study area in Utah. 

 

Brickellia 

microphylla var.

scabra

Little-leaved 

brickell-bush 

WY-SC WY–Sweetwater Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Ceanothus martinii Utah mountain 

lilac 

WY-SC WY–Lincoln, 

Sweetwater

No impact. This species is not known to 

occur in the vicinity of the study areas. 

Nearest occurrences are approximately 

70 mi from the study area in Wyoming.

 

Cercocarpus 

ledifolius var.

intricatus

Dwarf mountain 

mahogany

WY-SC WY–Sweetwater Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Chamaechaenactis scaposaFullstem WY-SC WY–Sweetwater Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Chrysothamnus 

greenei

Greene 

rabbitbrush

WY-SC WY–Sweetwater Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Cirsium aridum Cedar Rim 

thistle

BLM-S; 

WY-SC

WY–Sublette, 

Sweetwater

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area. 

Quad-level occurrences of this species 

intersect the study areas in Colorado and 

Wyoming.

 

Cirsium ownbeyi Ownbey’s thistle BLM-S; 

WY-SC

UT–Uintah; 

WY–Sweetwater

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area. 

Quad-level occurrences of this species 

intersect the study areas in Colorado and 

Wyoming.

 

Cirsium perplexans Adobe thistle BLM-S CO–Garfield Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area. 

Quad-level occurrences are within 5 mi 

from the study area in Colorado. 

 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-87 

TABLE 6.1.2-2 (Cont.)

Scientific Name Common Name Statusa

State and Counties within 

the Study Area in Which 

Species May Occur Potential for Effectb

 

Plants (Cont.) 

Cleomella 

palmeriana var. 

goodrichii 

Goodrich 

cleomella 

BLM-S UT–Uintah Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Collomia 

grandiflora

Large-flower 

collomia

WY-SC WY–Lincoln Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Cryptantha 

barnebyi 

Barneby’s cat’seye BLM-S UT–Uintah Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Cryptantha 

caespitosa

Caespitose cat’seyeBLM-S CO–Rio Blanco; 

UT–Carbon, Duchesne, 

Uintah

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area. 

Quad-level occurrences of this species 

intersect the study areas in Colorado and 

Utah.

 

Cryptantha gracilis Slender 

cryptantha

WY-SC WY–Sweetwater Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Cryptantha 

grahamii 

Graham’s cat’seye BLM-S UT–Uintah Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Cryptantha 

rollinsii

Rollins’ cat’s 

eye

BLM-S; 

WY-SC

CO–Rio Blanco; 

UT–Duchesne, 

San Raphael, Uintah, 

Wayne; WY–Sweetwater

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area. 

Quad-level occurrences of this species 

intersect the study areas in Colorado and 

Utah.

 

Cymopterus 

duchesnensis

Uinta Basin 

spring-parsley

BLM-S CO–Rio Blanco; 

UT–Duchesne, Uintah

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area. 

Quad-level occurrences are within 10 mi 

from the study area in Utah. 

 

Descurainia 

pinnata var.

paysonii

Payson’s tansy 

mustard

WY-SC WY–Sweetwater Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Descurainia 

torulosa

Wyoming 

tansymustard

BLM-S; 

WY-SC

WY–Sweetwater Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area. 

Quad-level occurrences of this species 

intersect the study areas in Colorado and 

Wyoming.

 

Downingia laeta Great Basin 

downingia

WY-SC WY–Uinta Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Draba juniperina Uinta draba WY-SC WY–Sweetwater, Uinta Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-88 

TABLE 6.1.2-2 (Cont.)

Scientific Name Common Name Statusa

State and Counties within 

the Study Area in Which 

Species May Occur Potential for Effectb

 

Plants (Cont.) 

Elymus simplex 

var. luxurians

Long-awned 

alkali wild-rye

WY-SC WY–Sweetwater Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area. 

Quad-level occurrences are within 5 mi 

from the study area in Wyoming. 

 

Ephedra viridis 

var. viridis

Green Mormon 

tea

WY-SC WY–Sweetwater Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Eriastrum wilcoxii Wilcox 

eriastrum

WY-SC WY–Sweetwater Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Erigeron 

compactus var.

consimilis

San Rafael daisy WY-SC WY–Sweetwater Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Eriogonum 

contortum

Grand 

buckwheat

BLM-S CO–Garfield; UT–Grand No impact. Suitable habitat for this 

species is not known to occur in the 

vicinity of any study areas. Nearest 

occurrences are approximately 20 mi 

from the study area in Colorado.

 

Eriogonum 

corymbosum var.

corymbosum

Crisp-leaf wild 

buckwheat

WY-SC WY–Sweetwater Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Eriogonum 

divaricatum

Divergent wild 

buckwheat

WY-SC WY–Lincoln, Sublette, 

Sweetwater, Uinta

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Eriogonum 

ephedroides

Ephedra 

buckwheat

BLM-S CO–Rio Blanco; 

UT–Uintah

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area. 

Quad-level occurrences of this species 

intersect the study areas in Colorado and 

Utah.

 

Eriogonum hookeri Hooker wild 

buckwheat

WY-SC WY–Sweetwater Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Frasera 

ackermanae 

Ackerman 

frasera 

BLM-S UT–Uintah Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Galium 

coloradoense

Colorado 

bedstraw

WY-SC WY–Sweetwater Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Gentianella 

tortuosa

Utah gentian BLM-S CO–Rio Blanco; 

UT–Duchesne, Emery, 

Garfield, Uintah

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area. 

Quad-level occurrences are within 8 mi 

from the study area in Colorado. 

 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-89 

TABLE 6.1.2-2 (Cont.)

Scientific Name Common Name Statusa

State and Counties within 

the Study Area in Which 

Species May Occur Potential for Effectb

 

Plants (Cont.) 

Gilia stenothyrsa Narrow-stem 

gilia

BLM-S CO–Rio Blanco; 

UT–Carbon, Duchesne, 

Emery, Uintah

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area. 

Quad-level occurrences of this species 

intersect the study areas in Colorado and 

Utah.

 

Glossopetalon 

spinescens var.

meionandrum

Utah greasebush WY-SC WY–Sweetwater Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Hymenoxys 

lapidicola 

Rock 

hymenoxys 

BLM-S UT–Uintah Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Lathyrus 

lanszwertii var.

lanszwertii

Nevada 

sweetpea

WY-SC WY–Uinta Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Lepidium huberi Huber’s 

pepperplant 

BLM-S UT–Uintah Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Lepidium 

integrifolium var.

integrifolium

Entire-leaved 

peppergrass

BLM-S; 

WY-SC

WY–Lincoln, Uinta No impact. Suitable habitat for this 

species is not known to occur in the 

vicinity of any study areas. Nearest 

occurrences are approximately 30 mi 

from the study area in Wyoming.

 

Lesquerella 

macrocarpa

Large-fruited 

bladderpod

BLM-S; 

WY-SC

WY–Lincoln, Sublette, 

Sweetwater

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area. 

Quad-level occurrences are within 9 mi 

from the study area in Wyoming. 

 

Lesquerella 

multiceps

Western 

bladderpod

BLM-S; 

WY-SC

WY–Lincoln Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Lesquerella 

parviflora

Piceance 

bladderpod

BLM-S CO–Garfield, Rio Blanco Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area. 

Quad-level occurrences of this species 

intersect the study area in Colorado.

 

Lesquerella 

parvula

Narrow-leaved 

bladderpod

WY-SC WY–Sweetwater, Uinta Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Lesquerella 

prostrata

Prostrate 

bladderpod

WY-SC WY–Lincoln, Uinta No impact. Suitable habitat for this 

species is not known to occur in the 

vicinity of any study areas. Nearest 

occurrences are approximately 20 mi 

from the study area in Wyoming.

 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-90 

TABLE 6.1.2-2 (Cont.)

Scientific Name Common Name Statusa

State and Counties within 

the Study Area in Which 

Species May Occur Potential for Effectb

 

Plants (Cont.) 

Listera borealis Northern 

twayblade

BLM-S CO–Garfield; 

UT–Duchesne, San Juan; 

WY–Sublette

No impact. Suitable habitat for this 

species is not known to occur in the 

vicinity of any study areas. Nearest 

occurrences are approximately 30 mi 

from the study area in Colorado.

 

Lomatium 

triternatum var.

anomalum

Ternate desertparsleyWY-SC WY–Lincoln Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Mentzelia 

goodrichii 

Goodrich’s 

blazingstar 

BLM-S UT–Duchesne, Uintah Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Mentzelia 

rhizomata

Roan Cliffs 

blazingstar

BLM-S CO–Garfield Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area. 

Quad-level occurrences of this species 

intersect the study area in Colorado.

 

Minuartia nuttallii Nuttall sandwort BLM-S UT–Duchesne; 

WY–Lincoln, Sublette, 

Sweetwater, Uinta

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Monolepis pusilla Red povertyweed

WY-SC WY–Sweetwater Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Opuntia 

polyacantha var.

juniperina

Juniper pricklypearWY-SC WY–Sublette, 

Sweetwater

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Opuntia 

polyacantha var.

rufispina

Rufous-spine 

prickly-pear

WY-SC WY–Lincoln, 

Sweetwater

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Oxytheca 

dendroidea

Tree-like 

oxytheca

WY-SC WY–Sweetwater Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Oxytropis besseyi 

var. obnapiformis

Maybell 

locoweed

WY-SC WY–Sweetwater, Uinta No impact. Suitable habitat for this 

species is not known to occur in the 

vicinity of the WY study areas. Nearest 

occurrences are approximately 85 mi 

from the study area in Wyoming.

 

Packera crocata Saffron 

groundsel

WY-SC WY–Sweetwater Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Parthenium 

ligulatum

Ligulate 

feverfew

BLM-S CO–Rio Blanco; 

UT–Wayne

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-91 

TABLE 6.1.2-2 (Cont.)

Scientific Name Common Name Statusa

State and Counties within 

the Study Area in Which 

Species May Occur Potential for Effectb

 

Plants (Cont.) 

Penstemon acaulis 

var. acaulis

Stemless 

beardtongue

BLM-S; 

WY-SC

WY–Sweetwater Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area. 

Quad-level occurrences are within 4 mi 

from the study area in Wyoming. 

 

Penstemon 

gibbensii

Gibbens’ 

beardtongue

BLM-S; 

WY-SC

WY–Sweetwater No impact. Suitable habitat for this 

species is not known to occur in the 

vicinity of any study areas. Nearest 

occurrences are approximately 20 mi 

from the study area in Wyoming.

 

Penstemon 

harringtonii

Harrington 

beardtongue

BLM-S CO–Garfield No impact. Suitable habitat for this 

species is not known to occur in the 

vicinity of any study areas. Nearest 

occurrences are approximately 20 mi 

from the study area in Colorado.

 

Penstemon 

laricifolius ssp.

exilifolius

White 

beardtongue

WY-SC WY–Sublette Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Penstemon 

scariosus var.

albifluvis

White River 

beardtongue

ESA-C; CO–Rio Blanco; 

UT–Uintah

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area. 

Quad-level occurrences of this species 

intersect the study areas in Colorado and 

Utah.

 

Penstemon 

scariosus var.

garrettii

Garrett’s 

beardtongue

WY-SC WY–Sweetwater, Uinta Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Phacelia 

argylensis 

Argyle Canyon 

phacelia 

BLM-S UT–Uintah Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Phacelia demissa Intermountain 

phacelia

WY-SC WY–Sweetwater Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Phacelia 

glandulosa var.

deserta

Desert glandular 

phacelia

WY-SC WY–Lincoln, Sublette, 

Sweetwater

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Phacelia incana Western 

phacelia

WY-SC WY–Sweetwater Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Phacelia salina Nelson phacelia WY-SC WY–Lincoln, Sublette, 

Sweetwater, Uinta

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Phacelia tetramera Tiny phacelia WY-SC WY–Sweetwater Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-92 

TABLE 6.1.2-2 (Cont.)

Scientific Name Common Name Statusa

State and Counties within 

the Study Area in Which 

Species May Occur Potential for Effectb

 

Plants (Cont.) 

Philadelphus 

microphyllus var.

occidentalis

Little-leaf mockorangeWY-SC WY–Sweetwater Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Phlox 

albomarginata

White-margined 

phlox

WY-SC WY–Lincoln Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Phlox pungens Beaver Rim 

phlox

BLM-S; 

WY-SC

WY–Lincoln, Sublette Potential for negative impact. Quadlevel occurrences of this species 

intersect the study areas in Colorado and 

Wyoming.

 

Physaria 

condensata

Tufted twinpod BLM-S; 

WY-SC

WY–Lincoln, Sublette, 

Uinta

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area. 

Quad-level occurrences are within 7 mi 

from the study area in Wyoming. 

 

Physaria dornii Dorn’s twinpod BLM-S; 

WY-SC

WY–Lincoln, Uinta No impact. Suitable habitat for this 

species is not known to occur in the 

vicinity of any study areas. Nearest 

occurrences are approximately 25 mi 

from the study area in Wyoming.

 

Physocarpus 

alternans

Dwarf ninebark WY-SC WY–Sweetwater Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Populus deltoides 

var. wislizeni

Fremont 

cottonwood

WY-SC WY–Sweetwater Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Potentilla 

multisecta

Deep Creek 

cinquefoil

WY-SC WY–Sweetwater, Uinta Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Psilocarphus 

brevissimus

Dwarf woollyheadsWY-SC WY–Sublette Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Ranunculus 

flabellaris

Yellow watercrowfootWY-SC WY–Uinta Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Rorippa calycina Persistent sepal 

yellowcress

BLM-S; 

WY-SC

WY–Sweetwater Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area. 

Quad-level occurrences are within 6 mi 

from the study area in Wyoming. 

 

Sambucus cerulea Blue elderberry WY-SC WY–Sweetwater Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Senecio spartioides 

var. multicapitatus

Many-headed 

broom groundsel

WY-SC WY–Sweetwater Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-93 

TABLE 6.1.2-2 (Cont.)

Scientific Name Common Name Statusa

State and Counties within 

the Study Area in Which 

Species May Occur Potential for Effectb

 

Plants (Cont.) 

Silene douglasii Douglas’ 

campion

WY-SC WY–Lincoln Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Thelesperma 

caespitosum

Green River 

greenthread

BLM-S; 

WY-SC

WY–Sweetwater Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area. 

Quad-level occurrences of this species 

intersect the study areas in Colorado and 

Wyoming.

 

Thelesperma 

pubescens

Uinta 

greenthread

BLM-S; 

WY-SC

WY–Sweetwater, Uinta Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area. 

Quad-level occurrences of this species 

intersect the study areas in Colorado and 

Wyoming.

 

Townsendia 

microcephala

Cedar Mountain 

Easter-daisy

BLM-S; 

WY-SC

WY–Sweetwater, Uinta Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Townsendia 

strigosa

Strigose EasterdaisyBLM-S UT–Duchesne, Uintah Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Yucca sterilis Spanish bayonet BLM-S UT–Uintah Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Invertebrates 

Speyeria nokomis 

nokomis 

Great Basin 

silverspot 

butterfly 

BLM-S UT–Duchesne, Uintah Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Fish 

Catostomus 

discobolus 

Bluehead sucker BLM-S; 

WY-SC 

CO–Garfield, 

Rio Blanco; UT–Carbon, 

Duchesne, Emery, 

Garfield, Grand, 

San Juan, Uintah; 

WY–Lincoln, Sublette, 

Sweetwater, Uinta 

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur near the study area. 

Quad-level occurrences of this species 

intersect the study areas in Colorado and 

Utah. 

 

Catostomus 

latipinnis 

Flannelmouth 

sucker 

BLM-S; 

WY-SC 

CO–Garfield, 

Rio Blanco; UT–Carbon, 

Duchesne, Emery, 

Garfield, Grand, 

San Juan, Uintah; 

Wayne; WY–Lincoln, 

Sublette, Sweetwater, 

Uinta 

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur near the study area. 

Quad-level occurrences of this species 

intersect the study areas in Colorado and 

Utah. 

 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-94 

TABLE 6.1.2-2 (Cont.)

Scientific Name Common Name Statusa

State and Counties within 

the Study Area in Which 

Species May Occur Potential for Effectb

 

Fish (Cont.) 

Catostomus 

platyrhynchus 

Mountain sucker BLM-S; 

CO-SC 

CO–Garfield, 

Rio Blanco; UT–Carbon, 

Duchesne, Emery, 

Grand, Uintah; 

WY–Sweetwater, Uinta 

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Gila copei Leatherside 

chub 

BLM-S; 

UT-SC; 

WY-SC 

UT–Duchesne, Emery, 

Garfield, Wayne; 

WY–Lincoln, Uinta 

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur near the study area. 

 

Gila robusta Roundtail chub BLM-S; 

CO-SC; 

WY-SC

CO–Garfield, 

Rio Blanco; UT–Carbon, 

Duchesne, Emery, 

Garfield, Grand, 

San Juan, Uintah, 

Wayne; WY–Lincoln, 

Sublette, Sweetwater, 

Uinta

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur near the study area. 

Quad-level occurrences of this species 

intersect the study areas in Colorado and 

Utah.

 

Oncorhynchus 

clarkii pleuriticus

Colorado River 

cutthroat trout

BLM-S; 

CO-SC; 

WY-SC

CO–Garfield, 

Rio Blanco; 

UT–Duchesne, Garfield, 

Uintah, Wayne; 

WY– Lincoln, Sublette, 

Sweetwater, Uinta

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur near the study area. 

Quad-level occurrences of this species 

intersect the study area in Colorado.

 

Oncorhynchus 

clarkii utah

Bonneville 

cutthroat trout

BLM-S; 

WY-SC

WY–Lincoln, Uinta No impact. Suitable habitat for this 

species is not known to occur in the 

vicinity of any study areas. Nearest 

occurrences are approximately 30 mi 

from the study area in Wyoming.

 

Amphibians 

Bufo boreas Boreal toad BLM-S; 

CO-E; 

UT-SC; 

WY-SC 

CO–Garfield, 

Rio Blanco; UT–Carbon, 

Duchesne, Emery, 

Garfield, Uintah, Wayne; 

WY–Lincoln, Sublette, 

Uinta 

Potential for negative impact.

Approximately 7,216 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area. Nearest 

occurrences are approximately 20 mi 

from the study area in Wyoming. 

 

Rana luteiventris Columbia 

spotted frog 

BLM-S; 

WY-SC 

UT–Utah, Wasatch; 

WY–Lincoln, Sublette 

Potential for negative impact.

Approximately 100 acres of potentially 

suitable habitat for this species occurs in 

the study area. Nearest occurrences are 

approximately 35 mi from the study area 

in Wyoming. 

 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-95 

TABLE 6.1.2-2 (Cont.)

Scientific Name Common Name Statusa

State and Counties within 

the Study Area in Which 

Species May Occur Potential for Effectb

 

Amphibians (Cont.) 

Rana pipiens Northern 

leopard frog 

BLM-S; 

CO-SC; 

WY-SC 

CO–Garfield, 

Rio Blanco; UT–Carbon, 

Duchesne, Emery, 

Garfield, Grand, 

San Juan, Uintah, 

Wayne; WY–Lincoln, 

Sublette, Sweetwater, 

Uinta 

Potential for negative impact.

Approximately 1,267 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area. Nearest 

occurrences are approximately 20 mi 

from the study area in Colorado. 

 

Spea intermontana Great basin 

spadefoot 

BLM-S; 

WY-SC 

CO–Garfield, 

Rio Blanco; UT–Carbon, 

Duchesne, Emery, 

Garfield, Grand, 

San Juan, Uintah, 

Wayne; WY–Lincoln, 

Sweetwater, Uinta 

Potential for negative impact.

Approximately 372,058 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area. Quadlevel occurrences of this species 

intersect the study area in Colorado. 

 

Reptiles 

Charina bottae Northern rubber 

boa 

WY-SC WY–Lincoln, Uinta Potential for negative impact.

Potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area in 

Wyoming. 

 

Crotalus oreganus 

concolor 

Midget faded 

rattlesnake 

BLM-S; 

CO-SC 

CO–Garfield, 

Rio Blanco; 

WY–Sweetwater 

Potential for negative impact.

Approximately 54,755 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area. Quadlevel occurrences of this species 

intersect the study areas in Colorado and 

Wyoming. 

 

Gambelia 

wislizenii

Longnose 

leopard lizard

BLM-S; 

CO-SC

CO–Garfield No impact. Suitable habitat for this 

species does not occur in the study area. 

 

Liochlorophis 

vernalis

Smooth 

greensnake

BLM-S; 

UT-SC

UT–Carbon, Duchesne, 

Grand, San Juan, Uintah

No impact. Suitable habitat for this 

species does not occur in the study area 

and it is not known to occur in the 

vicinity of the study area. Nearest 

occurrences are approximately 20 mi 

from the study area in Utah.

 

Pituophis catenifer 

deserticola 

Great Basin 

gophersnake 

WY-SC WY–Lincoln, 

Sweetwater, Uinta 

Potential for negative impact.

Potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area in 

Wyoming. 

 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-96 

TABLE 6.1.2-2 (Cont.)

Scientific Name Common Name Statusa

State and Counties within 

the Study Area in Which 

Species May Occur Potential for Effectb

 

Reptiles (Cont.) 

Urosaurus ornatus 

wright 

Northern tree 

lizard 

WY-SC WY–Sweetwater, Uinta Potential for negative impact.

Potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area in 

Wyoming. 

 

Birds 

Accipiter gentilis Northern 

goshawk 

BLM-S; 

WY-SC 

CO–Garfield, 

Rio Blanco; UT–Carbon, 

Duchesne, Emery, 

Garfield, Grand, 

San Juan, Uintah, 

Wayne; WY–Lincoln, 

Sublette, Sweetwater, 

Uinta

Potential for negative impact.

Approximately 213,343 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area. Quadlevel occurrences of this species 

intersect the study areas in Colorado, 

Wyoming, and Utah.

 

Aechmophorus 

clarkii

Clark’s grebe WY-SC WY–Lincoln Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 28 acres of potentially 

suitable habitat for this species occurs in 

the study area.

 

Aegolius funereus Boreal owl WY-SC WY–Lincoln, Uinta No impact. Suitable habitat for the 

species does not occur in the study area 

and it is not known to occur in the 

vicinity of the study area. Nearest 

occurrences are approximately 100 mi 

from the study area in Wyoming.

 

Ammodramus 

bairdii

Baird’s sparrow BLM-S; 

WY-SC

WY–Uinta Potential for negative impact.

Approximately 2,867,364 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area. Quadlevel occurrences of this species 

intersect the study areas in Colorado and 

Wyoming.

 

Ammodramus 

savannarum

Grasshopper 

sparrow

UT-SC; 

WY-SC

UT–Duchesne, Uintah, 

Utah, Wasatch; 

WY–Lincoln, 

Sweetwater, Uinta

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 172,820 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area.

 

Amphispiza belli Sage sparrow BLM-S WY–Lincoln, Sublette, 

Sweetwater, Uinta

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 409,705 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area. Quadlevel occurrences of this species 

intersect the study areas in Colorado and 

Wyoming.

 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-97 

TABLE 6.1.2-2 (Cont.)

Scientific Name Common Name Statusa

State and Counties within 

the Study Area in Which 

Species May Occur Potential for Effectb

 

Birds (Cont.) 

Aphelocoma 

californica

Western scrubjayWY-SC WY–Sweetwater Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 152,225 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area.

 

Asio flammeus Short-eared owl BLM-S; 

UT-SC; 

WY-SC

UT–Carbon, Duchesne, 

Emery, Grand, Garfield, 

San Juan, Uintah, 

Wayne; WY–Lincoln, 

Sweetwater, Uinta

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 173,888 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area. Quadlevel occurrences of this species 

intersect the study areas in Colorado and 

Utah.

 

Athene cunicularia Burrowing owl BLM-S; 

CO-T; 

UT-SC; 

WY-SC

CO–Garfield, 

Rio Blanco; UT–Carbon, 

Duchesne, Emery, 

Garfield, Grand, 

San Juan, Uintah, 

Wayne; WY–Lincoln, 

Sublette, Sweetwater, 

Uinta

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 386,092 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area. Quadlevel occurrences of this species 

intersect the study areas in Colorado, 

Wyoming, and Utah.

 

Baeolophus 

ridgwayi

Juniper titmouse WY-SC WY–Sweetwater Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 112,286 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area.

 

Botaurus 

lentiginosus

American bittern WY-SC WY–Lincoln, 

Sweetwater, Uinta

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 153,079 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area.

 

Bucephala 

islandica

Barrow’s 

goldeneye

BLM-S CO–Garfield, Rio Blanco Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 21,421 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area. Nearest 

occurrences are approximately 30 mi 

from the study area in Colorado.

 

Buteo regalis Ferruginous 

hawk

BLM-S; 

CO-SC; 

UT-SC; 

WY-SC

CO–Garfield, 

Rio Blanco; UT–Carbon, 

Duchesne, Emery, 

Garfield, Grand, 

San Juan, Uintah, 

Wayne; WY–Lincoln, 

Sublette, Sweetwater, 

Uinta

Potential for negative impact.

Approximately 287,057 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area. Quadlevel occurrences of this species 

intersect the study areas in Colorado, 

Wyoming, and Utah.

 

 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-98 

TABLE 6.1.2-2 (Cont.)

Scientific Name Common Name Statusa

State and Counties within 

the Study Area in Which 

Species May Occur Potential for Effectb

 

Birds (Cont.) 

Calcarius 

mccownii

McCown’s 

longspur

WY-SC WY–Sweetwater No impact. Suitable habitat for the 

species does not occur in the study area.

 

Centrocercus 

urophasianus

Greater sagegrouseESA-C, 

BLM-S; 

CO-SC; 

UT-SC; 

WY-SC

CO–Garfield, 

Rio Blanco; UT–Carbon, 

Duchesne, Emery, 

Garfield, Grand, 

San Juan, Uintah, 

Wayne; WY–Lincoln, 

Sublette, Sweetwater, 

Uinta

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 269,479 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area. Study 

areas in Colorado and Utah do not 

intersect any core or priority habitat. In 

Wyoming, approximately 120,690 acres 

of core habitat intersects lands available 

for application. Quad-level occurrences 

of this species intersect the study areas 

in Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah. 

 

Charadrius 

montanus

Mountain plover BLM-S; 

CO-SC; 

UT-SC; 

WY-SC

CO–Rio Blanco; 

WY–Lincoln, Sublette, 

Sweetwater

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 209,884 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area. Quadlevel occurrences of this species 

intersect the study areas in Colorado, 

Wyoming, and Utah.

 

Chlidonias niger Black tern WY-SC WY–Lincoln, 

Sweetwater, Uinta 

No impact. Suitable habitat for the 

species does not occur in the study area.

 

Coccyzus 

americanus 

occidentalis

Western yellowbilled cuckooESA-C; 

BLM-S; 

WY-SC

UT–Duchesne, Garfield, 

Grand, San Juan, Uintah, 

Wayne

Potential for negative impact. Species 

may occur in riparian habitats near the 

study areas. Nearest occurrences are 

approximately 20 mi from the study area 

in Utah.

 

Cygnus buccinator Trumpeter swan WY-SC WY–Lincoln, Sublette, 

Sweetwater

Potential for negative impact.

Approximately 60,591 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area. Quadlevel occurrences of this species 

intersect the study area in Wyoming.

 

Cypseloides niger Black swift BLM-S; 

CO-SC; 

UT-SC

CO–Garfield, 

Rio Blanco; 

UT–Duchesne, Uintah

Potential for negative impact.

Approximately 28 acres of potentially 

suitable habitat for this species occurs in 

the study area. Quad-level occurrences 

are within 13 mi from the study area in 

Colorado. 

 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-99 

TABLE 6.1.2-2 (Cont.)

Scientific Name Common Name Statusa

State and Counties within 

the Study Area in Which 

Species May Occur Potential for Effectb

 

Birds (Cont.) 

Dolichonyx 

oryzivorus

Bobolink BLM-S; 

UT-SC

UT–Carbon, Duchesne, 

Emery, Garfield, Grand, 

San Juan, Uintah, Wayne

Potential for negative impact.

Approximately 21,506 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area. Quadlevel occurrences are within 14 mi from 

the study area in Utah. 

 

Egretta thula Snowy egret WY-SC WY-Lincoln, Sublette, 

Sweetwater, Uinta 

Potential for negative impact.

Potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area in 

Wyoming. 

 

Falco peregrinus 

anatum

American 

peregrine falcon

BLM-S; 

CO-SC

CO–Garfield, 

Rio Blanco; 

WY–Sublette, 

Sweetwater

Potential for negative impact.

Approximately 427,283 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area. Quadlevel occurrences of this species 

intersect the study areas in Colorado and 

Wyoming.

 

Gavia immer Common loon WY-SC WY–Lincoln, Sublette, 

Sweetwater, Uinta

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 142 acres of potentially 

suitable habitat for this species occurs in 

the study area.

 

Glaucidium gnoma Northern 

pygmy-owl 

WY-SC WY-Lincoln, Uinta Potential for negative impact.

Potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area in 

Wyoming.

 

Grus canadensis 

tabida

Greater sandhill 

crane

CO-SC; 

WY-SC

CO–Garfield, 

Rio Blanco; 

WY–Lincoln, 

Sweetwater, Uinta

Potential for negative impact.

Approximately 186,897 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area in 

Colorado and Wyoming. Nearest 

occurrences are approximately 20 mi 

from the study area in Colorado.

 

Haliaeetus 

leucocephalus

Bald eagle BLM-S; 

CO-T; 

WY-SC

CO–Garfield, 

Rio Blanco; UT–Carbon, 

Duchesne, Emery, 

Garfield, Grand, 

San Juan, Uintah, 

Wayne; WY–Lincoln, 

Sublette, Sweetwater, 

Uinta

Potential for negative impact.

Approximately 437,787 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area. Quadlevel occurrences of this species 

intersect the study areas in Colorado, 

Utah, and Wyoming.

 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-100 

TABLE 6.1.2-2 (Cont.)

Scientific Name Common Name Statusa

State and Counties within 

the Study Area in Which 

Species May Occur Potential for Effectb

 

Birds (Cont.) 

Icterus parisorum Scott’s oriole WY-SC WY–Sweetwater Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 74,611 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area.

 

Lanius 

ludovicianus

Loggerhead 

shrike

WY-SC WY–Lincoln, Sublette, 

Sweetwater, Uinta

Potential for negative impact.

Approximately 440,292 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area. Quadlevel occurrences of this species 

intersect the study area in Wyoming.

 

Leucosticte atrata Black rosy-finch WY-SC WY–Sweetwater, 

Lincoln 

Potential for negative impact.

Potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area in 

Wyoming.

 

Melanerpes lewis Lewis’s 

woodpecker

BLM-S; 

UT-SC; 

WY-SC

UT–Carbon, Duchesne, 

Emery, Garfield, Grand, 

San Juan, Uintah, 

Wayne; WY–Uinta

Potential for negative impact.

Approximately 13,023 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area. Quadlevel occurrences are within 14 mi from 

the study area in Utah. 

 

Myiarchus 

cinerascens 

Ash-throated 

flycatcher 

WY-SC WY–Lincoln, 

Sweetwater, Uinta 

Potential for negative impact.

Potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area in 

Wyoming.

 

Numenius 

americanus

Long-billed 

curlew

BLM-S; 

CO-SC; 

UT-SC; 

WY-SC

CO–Garfield, 

Rio Blanco; UT–Carbon, 

Duchesne, Emery, 

Garfield, Grand, 

San Juan, Uintah, 

Wayne; WY–Lincoln, 

Sublette, Sweetwater, 

Uinta

Potential for negative impact.

Approximately 177,162 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area. Quadlevel occurrences of this species 

intersect the study areas in Colorado, 

Utah, and Wyoming.

 

Nycticorax 

nycticorax 

Black-crowned 

night-heron 

WY-SC WY–Lincoln, 

Sweetwater, Uinta 

Potential for negative impact.

Potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area in 

Wyoming.

 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-101 

TABLE 6.1.2-2 (Cont.)

Scientific Name Common Name Statusa

State and Counties within 

the Study Area in Which 

Species May Occur Potential for Effectb

 

Birds (Cont.) 

Oreoscoptes 

montanus

Sage thrasher BLM-S; 

WY-SC

WY–Lincoln, Sublette, 

Sweetwater, Uinta

Potential for negative impact.

Approximately 381,195 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area. Quadlevel occurrences of this species 

intersect the study areas in Colorado and 

Wyoming.

 

Pelecanus 

erythrorhynchos

American white 

pelican

BLM-S; 

UT-SC

CO–Garfield, 

UT–Carbon, Duchesne, 

Emery, Garfield, Grand, 

San Juan, Uintah, Wayne

Potential for negative impact.

Approximately 160,480 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area. Quadlevel occurrences of this species 

intersect the study areas in Colorado and 

Utah.

 

Picoides arcticus Black-backed 

woodpecker

WY-SC WY–Lincoln No impact. Suitable habitat for the 

species does not occur in the study area.

 

Picoides 

tridactylus

Three-toed 

woodpecker

BLM-S; 

UT-SC

UT–Carbon, Duchesne, 

Emery, Garfield, Grand, 

San Juan, Uintah, Wayne

No impact. Suitable habitat for the 

species does not occur in the study area.

 

Plegadis chihi White-faced ibis BLM-S; 

WY-SC

CO–Garfield, 

Rio Blanco; 

WY–Lincoln, Sublette, 

Sweetwater, Uinta

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 143,614 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area. Quadlevel occurrences of this species 

intersect the study areas in Colorado and 

Wyoming.

 

Psaltriparus 

minimus

Bushtit WY-SC WY–Sweetwater, Uinta Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 249,310 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area.

 

Rallus limicola Virginia rail WY-SC WY–Lincoln, Sublette, 

Sweetwater, Uinta 

Potential for negative impact. 

Potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area in 

Wyoming.

 

Sitta pygmaea Pygmy nuthatch WY-SC WY–Lincoln, Sublette Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 99,035 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area.

 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-102 

TABLE 6.1.2-2 (Cont.)

Scientific Name Common Name Statusa

State and Counties within 

the Study Area in Which 

Species May Occur Potential for Effectb

 

Birds (Cont.) 

Sphyrapicus 

thyroideus

Williamson’s 

sapsucker

WY-SC WY–Lincoln, Sublette, 

Sweetwater, Uinta

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 4,825 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area.

 

Spizella breweri Brewer’s 

sparrow

BLM-S; 

WY-SC

WY–Lincoln, Sublette, 

Sweetwater, Uinta

Potential for negative impact.

Approximately 393,151 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area. Quadlevel occurrences of this species 

intersect the study areas in Colorado and 

Wyoming.

 

Sterna caspia Caspian tern WY-SC WY–Lincoln Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 185 acres of potentially 

suitable habitat for this species occurs in 

the study area.

 

Sterna forsteri Forster’s tern WY-SC WY–Lincoln Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 30,274 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area.

 

Tympanuchus 

phasianellus 

columbianus

Columbian 

sharp-tailed 

grouse

BLM-S; 

CO-SC

CO–Garfield, Rio Blanco Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat does not occur in the study area. 

Quad-level occurrences are within 7 mi 

of the study area in Colorado. 

 

Mammals 

Antrozous pallidus Pallid bat WY-SC WY–Sweetwater Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 254,107 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area.

 

Brachylagus 

idahoensis

Pygmy rabbit BLM-S; 

UT-SC; 

WY-SC

UT–Garfield, Wayne; 

WY–Lincoln, Sublette, 

Sweetwater, Uinta

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 173,375 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area. Quadlevel occurrences of this species 

intersect the study areas in Colorado and 

Wyoming.

 

Corynorhinus 

townsendii 

pallescens

Townsend’s bigeared batBLM-S; 

CO-SC; 

UT-SC; 

WY-SC

CO–Garfield, 

Rio Blanco; UT–Carbon, 

Duchesne, Emery, 

Garfield, Grand, 

San Juan, Uintah, 

Wayne; WY–Sweetwater

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 282,474 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area. Quadlevel occurrences are within 9 mi from 

the study area in Utah. 

 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-103 

TABLE 6.1.2-2 (Cont.)

Scientific Name Common Name Statusa

State and Counties within 

the Study Area in Which 

Species May Occur Potential for Effectb

 

Mammals (Cont.) 

Cynomys leucurus White-tailed 

prairie dog

BLM-S; 

UT-SC; 

WY-SC

UT–Carbon, Duchesne, 

Emery, Grand, Uintah; 

WY–Lincoln, Sublette, 

Sweetwater, Uinta

Potential for negative impact.

Approximately 337,642 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area. Quadlevel occurrences of this species 

intersect the study areas in Colorado, 

Utah, and Wyoming.

 

Euderma 

maculatum

Spotted bat BLM-S; 

UT-SC; 

WY-SC

CO–Garfield, 

Rio Blanco; 

UT–Duchesne, Garfield, 

Grand, San Juan, Uintah, 

Wayne; WY–Sweetwater

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 219,064 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area. Quadlevel occurrences are within 13 mi from 

the study area in Utah. 

 

Glaucomys 

sabrinus 

Northern flying 

squirrel 

WY-SC WY–Lincoln, Sublette, 

Sweetwater, Uinta 

Potential for negative impact.

Potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area in 

Wyoming. 

 

Gulo gulo Wolverine CO-E; 

WY-SC

CO–Garfield, 

Rio Blanco; 

WY–Lincoln, Sublette

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 100 acres of potentially 

suitable habitat for this species occurs in 

the study area. Quad-level occurrences 

are within 6 mi from the study area in 

Wyoming. 

 

Lontra Canadensis River otter WY-SC WY–Lincoln, Sublette, 

Sweetwater, Uinta 

Potential for negative impact.

Potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area in 

Wyoming. 

 

Martes Americana American 

marten 

WY-SC WY–Lincoln, Sublette, 

Sweetwater, Uinta 

Potential for negative impact.

Potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area in 

Wyoming. 

 

Microtus 

richardsoni

Water vole WY-SC WY–Lincoln, Sublette, 

Uinta

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 655 acres of potentially 

suitable habitat for this species occurs in 

the study area.

 

Myotis ciliolabrum Western smallfooted bat WY-SC WY–Lincoln, Sublette, 

Sweetwater, Uinta 

Potential for negative impact.

Potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area in 

Wyoming. 

 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-104 

TABLE 6.1.2-2 (Cont.)

Scientific Name Common Name Statusa

State and Counties within 

the Study Area in Which 

Species May Occur Potential for Effectb

 

Mammals (Cont.) 

Myotis evotis Long-eared 

myotis

BLM-S WY–Lincoln, Sublette, 

Sweetwater, Uinta

Potential for negative impact.

Approximately 232,301 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area. Quadlevel occurrences of this species 

intersect the study areas in Colorado and 

Utah.

 

Myotis thysanodes Fringed myotis BLM-S; 

UT-SC; 

WY-SC

CO–Garfield, 

Rio Blanco; 

UT–Duchesne, Garfield, 

Grand, San Juan, Uintah, 

Wayne; WY–Sublette

Potential for negative impact.

Approximately 262,035 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area. Quadlevel occurrences of this species 

intersect the study areas in Colorado and 

Utah.

 

Myotis volans Long-legged 

myotis 

WY-SC WY–Lincoln, Sublette, 

Sweetwater, Uinta 

Potential for negative impact.

Potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area in 

Wyoming. 

 

Ovis canadensis Bighorn sheep WY-SC WY–Lincoln, Sublette, 

Sweetwater 

Potential for negative impact.

Potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area in 

Wyoming. 

 

Peromyscus 

crinitus

Canyon mouse WY-SC WY–Sweetwater Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 118,848 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area.

 

Peromyscus truei Pinon mouse WY-SC WY–Sweetwater Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 246,463 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area.

 

Sorex nanus Dwarf shrew WY-SC WY–Lincoln, Sublette, 

Sweetwater, Uinta 

Potential for negative impact.

Potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area in 

Wyoming. 

 

Sorex preblei Preble’s shrew WY-SC WY–Lincoln, Uinta No impact. Suitable habitat for the 

species does not occur in the study area.

 

Tamias dorsalis 

utahensis

Cliff chipmunk WY-SC WY–Sweetwater Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 224,331 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area.

 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-105 

TABLE 6.1.2-2 (Cont.)

Scientific Name Common Name Statusa

State and Counties within 

the Study Area in Which 

Species May Occur Potential for Effectb

 

Mammals (Cont.) 

Thomomys clusius Wyoming 

pocket gopher

BLM-S WY–Sweetwater Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 11,159 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area. Quadlevel occurrences of this species 

intersect the study areas in Colorado and 

Wyoming.

 

Thomomys 

idahoensis

Idaho pocket 

gopher

BLM-S; 

WY-SC

WY–Lincoln, Sublette, 

Uinta

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 13,749 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area. Quadlevel occurrences of this species 

intersect the study areas in Colorado and 

Wyoming.

 

Vulpes macrotis Kit fox BLM-S; 

CO-E; 

UT-SC

CO–Garfield, 

Rio Blanco; 

UT–Carbon, Duchesne, 

Emery, Garfield, Grand, 

San Juan, Uintah, Wayne

No impact. Suitable habitat for the 

species does not occur in the study area. 

 

Vulpes velox Swift fox BLM-S; 

WY-SC

WY–Sweetwater Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 3,644 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area.

a Status categories: BLM-S = listed by the BLM as sensitive; CO-E = listed as endangered by the State of Colorado; 

CO-SC = species of special concern in the state of Colorado; CO-T = listed as threatened by the State of Colorado; 

ESA-C = candidate for listing under the ESA; UT-SC = species of special concern in the state of Utah; WY-SC = species 

of special concern in the state of Wyoming.

b Potential impacts are based upon the presence of potentially suitable habitat or recorded occurrences in the vicinity of the 

Alternative 2 footprint (i.e., study area). Recorded occurrences were obtained as USGS quad-level or township range-level 

element occurrence records from state natural heritage program offices (CNHP 2011; UDWR 2011; WYNDD 2011a). If 

available for terrestrial vertebrates, SWReGAP animal habitat suitability models (USGS 2007) and terrestrial vertebrate 

distribution models for the state of Wyoming (WYNDD 2011b) were used to determine the presence of potentially 

suitable habitat in the Alternative 2 footprint (i.e., study area). 

 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-106 

TABLE 6.1.2-3 Potential Effects of Commercial Oil Shale Development under Alternative 2 on 

Federally Listed Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Species 

Scientific Name Common Name Statusa

States and Counties 

within the Study 

Area in Which 

Species May Occur Potential for Effectb

 

Plants 

Lepidium 

barnebyanum

Barneby ridgecressESA-E UT–Duchesne No impact. Suitable habitat is not likely to 

occur in the study area. Nearest quad-level 

occurrences are approximately 13 mi from 

the study areas in Utah. 

 

Lesquerella 

congesta

Dudley Bluffs 

bladderpod

ESA-T CO–Rio Blanco Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area. Quadlevel occurrences of this species intersect 

the study area in Colorado.

 

Penstemon 

debilis

Parachute 

beardtongue

ESA-T CO–Garfield Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area. Quadlevel occurrences are within 5 mi from the 

study area in Colorado. 

 

Penstemon 

grahamii

Graham’s 

beardtongue

ESA-PT; 

BLM-S

CO–Rio Blanco; 

UT–Duchesne, 

Uintah

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area. Quadlevel occurrences of this species intersect 

the study areas in Colorado and Utah.

 

Phacelia 

argillacea

Clay phacelia ESA-E UT–Utah, Wasatch No impact. Suitable habitat for this species 

is not known to occur in the vicinity of any 

study areas. Nearest occurrences are 

approximately 50 mi from the study area in 

Utah.

 

Phacelia 

scopulina var.

submutica

Debeque phacelia ESA-T CO–Garfield Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area. Quadlevel occurrences are within 5 mi from the 

study area in Colorado. 

 

Physaria 

obcordata

Dudley Bluffs 

twinpod

ESA-T CO–Rio Blanco Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area. Quadlevel occurrences of this species intersect 

the study area in Colorado.

 

Schoenocrambe 

argillacea

Clay reedmustardESA-T UT–Uintah Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area. Quadlevel occurrences of this species intersect 

the study areas in Colorado and Utah.

 

Schoenocrambe 

suffrutescens

Shrubby reedmustardESA-E UT–Duchesne, 

Uintah

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area. Quadlevel occurrences of this species intersect 

the study areas in Colorado and Utah.

 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-107 

TABLE 6.1.2-3 (Cont.)

Scientific Name Common Name Statusa

States and Counties 

within the Study 

Area in Which 

Species May Occur Potential for Effectb

 

Plants (Cont.) 

Sclerocactus 

brevispinus

Pariette cactus ESA-T UT–Duchesne, 

Uintah

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area. Quadlevel occurrences of this species intersect 

the study areas in Utah.

 

Sclerocactus 

glaucus

Colorado 

hookless cactus

ESA-T CO–Garfield Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area. Quadlevel occurrences are within 5 mi from the 

study area in Colorado. 

 

Sclerocactus 

wetlandicus 

Uinta Basin 

hookless cactus 

ESA-T UT–Carbon, 

Duchesne, Uintah 

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area. Quadlevel occurrences of this species intersect 

the study areas in Utah.

 

Spiranthes 

diluvialis

Ute ladies’-

tresses

ESA-T UT–Duchesne, 

Garfield, Uintah, 

Wayne

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area. Quadlevel occurrences are within 13 mi from the 

study area in Utah. 

 

Fish 

Gila cypha Humpback chub ESA-E; 

CO-T 

UT–Carbon, Emery, 

Garfield, Grand, 

San Juan, Uintah, 

Wayne

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur near the study area. 

Designated critical habitat occurs within 

5 mi from study areas in Utah. Quad-level 

occurrences of this species intersect the 

study areas in Colorado and Utah.

 

Gila elegans Bonytail ESA-E UT–Carbon, 

Duchesne, Emery, 

Garfield, Grand, 

San Juan, Uintah, 

Wayne

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur near the study area. 

Designated critical habitat occurs within 

5 mi from study areas in Utah. Quad-level 

occurrences of this species intersect the 

study areas in Colorado and Utah.

 

Ptychocheilus 

lucius

Colorado 

pikeminnow

ESA-E; 

CO-T

CO–Rio Blanco; 

UT–Carbon, 

Duchesne, Emery, 

Garfield, Grand, 

San Juan, Uintah, 

Wayne

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur near the study area. 

Designated critical habitat occurs within 

1 mi from study areas in Utah. Quad-level 

occurrences of this species intersect the 

study areas in Colorado and Utah.

 

Xyrauchen 

texanus

Razorback sucker ESA-E; 

CO-E

CO–Garfield, 

Rio Blanco; 

UT–Carbon, Emery 

Garfield, Grand, 

San Juan, Uintah, 

Wayne

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur near the study area. 

Designated critical habitat occurs within 

1 mi from study areas in Utah. Quad-level 

occurrences of this species intersect the 

study areas in Colorado and Utah.

 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-108 

TABLE 6.1.2-3 (Cont.)

Scientific Name Common Name Statusa

States and Counties 

within the Study 

Area in Which 

Species May Occur Potential for Effectb

 

Birds 

Empidonax 

traillii extimus 

Southwestern 

willow flycatcher 

ESA-E UT–Carbon, Emery, 

Garfield, Grand, 

San Juan, Uintah, 

Wayne 

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 164,124 acres of potentially 

suitable habitat for this species occurs in 

the study area. 

 

Grus americana Whooping crane ESA-XN; 

CO-E 

CO–Garfield, 

Rio Blanco 

No impact. Suitable habitat for the species 

does not occur in the study area. This 

species may only occur as a rare migrant 

through Colorado. 

 

Strix occidentalis 

lucida 

Mexican spotted 

owl 

ESA-T UT–Emery, Garfield, 

Grand, San Juan, 

Uintah, Wayne 

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 9,593 acres of potentially 

suitable habitat for this species occurs in 

the study area. Critical habitat for this 

species occurs within 5 mi from study areas 

in Utah. 

 

Mammals 

Lynx canadensis Canada lynx ESA-T; 

CO-E; 

WY-SC 

CO–Garfield, 

Rio Blanco; 

UT–Emery, Uintah; 

WY–Lincoln, 

Sublette, Uinta 

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 925 acres of potentially 

suitable habitat for this species occurs in 

the study area. Designated critical habitat 

does not occur in the vicinity of the study 

areas. Quad-level occurrences of this 

species intersect the study areas in 

Colorado and Wyoming. 

 

Mustela nigripes Black-footed 

ferret 

ESA-XN; 

CO-E 

CO–Rio Blanco; 

UT–Carbon, 

Duchesne, Emery, 

Grand, San Juan, 

Uintah; 

WY–Sublette, 

Sweetwater 

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 34,401 acres of potentially 

suitable habitat for this species occurs in 

the study area. Quad-level occurrences of 

this species intersect the study areas in 

Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. 

a Status categories: BLM-S = listed by the BLM as sensitive; CO-E = listed as endangered by the State of Colorado; 

CO-T = listed as threatened by the State of Colorado; ESA-E = listed as endangered under the ESA; ESA-PT = proposed 

for listing as a threatened species under the ESA; ESA-T = listed as threatened under the ESA; ESA-XN = experimental, 

nonessential population; WY-SC = species of special concern in the state of Wyoming.

b Potential impacts are based upon the presence of potentially suitable habitat or recorded occurrences in the vicinity of the 

Alternative 2 footprint (i.e., study area). Recorded occurrences were obtained as USGS quad-level or township range-level 

element occurrence records from state natural heritage program offices (CNHP 2011; UDWR 2011; WYNDD 2011a). If 

available for terrestrial vertebrates, SWReGAP animal habitat suitability models (USGS 2007) and terrestrial vertebrate 

distribution models for the state of Wyoming (WYNDD 2011b) were used to determine the presence of potentially 

suitable habitat in the Alternative 2 footprint (i.e., study area). Spatial data for designated critical habitat were obtained 

from the USFWS Critical Habitat Portal (USFWS 2011). 

 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-109 

Utah, and Wyoming, species occurrences from state natural heritage programs,6 and the presence 

of potentially suitable habitat.7 Under this alternative, there are no critical habitats for species 

listed under the ESA in the potential lease areas. However, critical habitat for Colorado River 

endangered fishes and the Mexican spotted owl (Strix occidentalis lucida) occur within 5 mi 

from potential lease areas (Figure 6.1.2-4). Areas including greater sage-grouse habitat and lek 

sites are shown in Figure 6.1.2-5. Under this alternative, greater sage-grouse core and priority 

habitats8 are excluded from oil shale development in Colorado and Utah; approximately 

120,690 acres of greater sage-grouse core habitat in Wyoming would be available for application 

for leasing of oil shale resources. Additional amounts of core or priority greater sage-grouse 

habitat in each of the three states may occur in close proximity (<1 mi) to proposed lease areas. 

In addition, three current and historic sage-grouse leks have been identified in Wyoming in areas 

overlapped by the Alternative 2 lease areas in that state (Figure 6.1.2-5). Those areas for which 

lease stipulations have been established in existing RMPs to protect federally listed and 

candidate species, BLM-designated sensitive species, and other special status species would not 

be available for lease application under Alternative 2. 

 The potential impacts on threatened, endangered, and sensitive species (and their 

habitats) by commercial oil shale development are directly related to the amount of land 

disturbance that could occur with a commercial project (including ancillary facilities such as 

power plants and utility and pipeline ROWs), the duration and timing of construction and 

operation periods, and the habitats affected by development (i.e., the location of the project). 

Indirect effects, such as impacts resulting from the erosion of disturbed land surfaces, surface 

water or groundwater depletions, contamination, and disturbance and harassment of animal 

species, would be proportional to the amount of land disturbance. 

 Potential impacts on threatened, endangered, and sensitive species under Alternative 2 

are similar to or the same as impacts on aquatic resources; plant communities and habitats; and 

wildlife described in Sections 6.1.2.7.1, 6.1.2.7.2, and 6.1.2.7.3, respectively. The most 

important difference is the potential consequence of the impacts. Because of their low population 

sizes, threatened and endangered species are far more vulnerable than more common and 

widespread species. Low population size makes them more vulnerable to the effects of habitat 

fragmentation, habitat alteration, habitat degradation, human disturbance and harassment, 

mortality of individuals, and the loss of genetic diversity. Specific impacts associated with 

 

6 Spatial data were obtained from state natural heritage program or conservation offices that represented USGS 

quad-level or township range-level occurrences of species (CNHP 2011; UDWR 2011; WYNDD 2011a). A 

spatial analysis was performed to determine the distance of recorded occurrences of each species to the potential 

lease areas. For species tracked in these state databases, these distance measurements are provided in 

Tables 6.1.2-2 and 6.1.2-3. 

7 Spatial models representing potentially suitable habitat of terrestrial vertebrate wildlife species were obtained 

from USGS (2007) and WYNDD (2011b). For species with an available habitat model, a spatial analysis was 

performed to quantify the amount of potentially suitable habitat within the potential lease areas. This 

quantification is presented in Tables 6.1.2-2 and 6.1.2-3. 

8 Data and habitats considered as core or priority greater sage-grouse habitat for this PEIS are discussed in a text 

box in Section 3.7.4.3.1. 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-110 

FIGURE 6.1.2-4 Designated Critical Habitat of Threatened and Endangered Species near Lands 

Available for Application for Leasing for Oil Shale under Alternative 2 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-111 

FIGURE 6.1.2-5 Distribution of Core and Priority Habitat Areas and Lek Sites for Greater 

Sage-Grouse near Lands Available for Application for Leasing for Oil Shale under Alternative 2
Final OSTS PEIS 6-112 

development would depend on the locations of projects relative to species populations and the 

details of project development. These impacts would be evaluated in detail in project-specific 

assessments and consultations conducted prior to leasing and development. 

6.1.2.8 Visual Resources 

 The lands available for application for leasing under Alternative 2, approximately 

676,967 acres support a wide variety of visual resources (Section 3.8). These resources would 

not be affected by the amendment of land use plans or by the identification of these lands as 

available for application for commercial leasing. Visual resources in and around these potential 

lease areas, however, could be affected by subsequent commercial development of oil shale. 

 One scenic resource area is located in Utah within the area that would be available for 

application for commercial leasing under Alternative 2. Specifically, this area (shown in 

Figures 6.1.2-6, 6.1.2-7, and 6.1.2-8) is Fantasy Canyon SRMA. 

 Scenic resource areas are also located within 5 or 15 mi of the areas that would be made 

available for application for commercial leasing under Alternative 2 (Figures 6.1.2-6, 6.1.2-7, 

and 6.1.2-8). These 5- and 15-mi zones correspond to the BLM’s VRM foregroundmiddleground and background distance limits, respectively. Based on the assumption of an 

unobstructed view of a commercial oil shale project, viewers in these areas would be likely to 

perceive some level of visual impact from a commercial oil shale project; impacts would be 

expected to be greater for resources within the foreground-middleground distance and lesser for 

those areas within the background distance. Beyond the background distance, the project might 

be visible but would likely occupy a very small visual angle and create low levels of visual 

contrast such that impacts would be expected to be minor to negligible. Table 6.1.2-4 identifies 

the scenic resource areas that would fall within these zones under Alternative 2. 

 Visual resources could be affected at and near the Alternative 2 lease areas where 

commercial oil shale projects are developed and operated, and at areas where supporting 

infrastructure (e.g., plants and utility and pipeline ROWs) would be located. Visual resources 

could be affected by ROW clearing, project construction, and operation (see Section 4.9.1). 

Potential impacts would be associated with construction equipment and activity, cleared project 

areas, and the type and visibility of individual project components, such as shale-processing 

facilities, utility ROWs, and surface mines. The nature, magnitude, and extent of project-related 

impacts would depend on the type, location, and design of the individual project components. 

6.1.2.9 Cultural Resources 

 Under Alternative 2, the amendment of land use plans to identify 676,967 acres of public 

land as available for commercial oil shale development would not result in impacts on cultural 

resources. Existing ACECs, some of which have been identified for their cultural values, 

including about 7,300 acres in Wyoming (the West Sand Dunes Archaeological District), will be 

excluded from potential application for leasing under this alternative, and, therefore, the cultural 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-113 

FIGURE 6.1.2-6 Scenic Resource Areas within the 5- and 15-mi Zones around the Lands 

Available for Application for Leasing under Alternative 2 in Colorado 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-114 

FIGURE 6.1.2-7 Scenic Resource Areas within the 5- and 15-mi Zones around the Lands 

Available for Application for Leasing under Alternative 2 in Utah 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-115 

FIGURE 6.1.2-8 Scenic Resource Areas within the 5- and 15-mi Zones around the Lands 

Available for Application for Leasing under Alternative 2 in Wyoming 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-116 

TABLE 6.1.2-4 Visually Sensitive Areas That Could Be Affected by Commercial Oil Shale 

Projects Developed in the Alternative 2 Lease Areas 

Location 

Scenic Resources within 5 mi of Alternative 2 

Lease Areas 

Scenic Resources between 5 and 15 mi of 

Alternative 2 Lease Areas 

 

Colorado Deer Gulch, Duck Creek, Dudley Bluffs, East 

Douglas Creek, East Douglas Creek/South 

Cathedral Bluffs Addition, East Fork 

Parachute Creek, Lower Greasewood Creek, 

Magpie Gulch, Ryan Gulch, Trapper Creek, 

Trapper Creek/Northwater Creek, Upper 

Greasewood Creek, and White River Riparian 

ACECs; segments of Trapper Creek, and 

Northwater Creek determined to be eligible 

for WSR designation; and Black Mountain 

WSA. 

Anvil Points, Blacks Gulch, Coal Draw, East 

Douglas Creek, East Douglas Creek/South 

Cathedral Bluffs Addition, East Fork 

Parachute Creek, Lower Colorado River, 

Lower Greasewood Creek, Magpie Gulch, 

Pyramid Rock RNA, South Cathedral Bluffs 

Addition, South Cathedral Bluffs/South 

Cathedral Bluffs Addition, Trapper 

Creek/Northwater Creek, Upper Greasewood 

Creek, White River Riparian, and Yanks 

Gulch ACECs; Dinosaur Diamond Prehistoric 

Scenic Highway; segments of East Fork 

Parachute Creek determined to be eligible for 

WSR designation; and Black Mountain and 

Windy Gulch WSAs. 

 

Utah Lower Green River Corridor, Nine Mile, Oil 

Spring Mountain, Pariette, Raven Ridge, 

Raven Ridge Addition, Raven Ridge/Raven 

Ridge Addition, and White River Riparian 

ACECs; Ouray NWR; Nine Mile Canyon 

Backway; Fantasy Canyon, Nine Mile, and 

White River SRMAs; and Desolation Canyon, 

Oil Spring Mountain, and Winter Ridge 

WSAs. 

Coal Oil Rim, Nine Mile, Oil Spring 

Mountain, Raven Ridge, Raven Ridge 

Addition, Raven Ridge/Raven Ridge 

Addition, and White River Riparian ACECs; 

Dinosaur National Monument; Ouray NWR; 

Dinosaur Diamond Prehistoric Highway and 

Nine Mile Canyon Backway; Nine Mile, Blue 

Mountain, and Pelican Lake SRMAs; Book 

Cliffs Mountain Browse ISA, Bull Canyon, 

Desolation Canyon, Jack Canyon, Oil Spring 

Mountain, Willow Creek, and Winter Ridge 

WSAs. 

 

Wyoming Greater Red Creek, Hells Canyon, Pine 

Springs, Special Status Plant Species, and 

White Mountain Petroglyphs ACECs; 

Expedition Island NHL; California, Mormon 

Pioneer, Oregon, and Pony Express NHTs; 

Bridger Valley Historic and Flaming Gorge – 

Green River Basin Scenic Byways; 

Seedskadee NWR; and Adobe Town, Buffalo 

Hump, and Devils Playground/Twin Buttes 

WSAs. 

Ace In The Hole, Cedar Canyon, Greater Red 

Creek, Greater Sand Dunes, Horse Draw, Irish 

Canyon, Limestone Ridge, Lookout 

Mountain, Special Status Plant Species, 

Steamboat Mountain, and Vermillion Bluffs 

ACECs; California, Mormon Pioneer, Oregon, 

and Pony Express NHTs; Bridger Valley 

Historic, Flaming Gorge – Green River Basin 

Scenic, and Flaming Gorge-Uintas National 

Scenic Byway; Muddy Creek Historic 

Backway; segments of Upper Green River 

(Utah) determined to be eligible for WSR 

designation; High Uintas Wilderness; and 

Adobe Town and Buffalo Hump WSAs. 

 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-117 

resources present in these areas would not be directly impacted under this alternative. The 

remaining lands made available for application for leasing overlap with some lands identified as 

having cultural resources present. Of the public lands that would be made available for 

application for leasing under Alternative 2, approximately 7% in the Piceance Basin, 

approximately 48% in the Uinta Basin, and approximately 8% in the Green River and Washakie 

Basins have been surveyed for cultural resources. In these areas that have been surveyed, an 

approximate total of 3,509 sites have been identified. Additional resources are likely in 

unsurveyed portions of the study area. On the basis of a sensitivity analysis conducted for the 

Class I Cultural Resources Overview (O’Rourke et al. 2012), 20,401 acres (78%) of the Piceance 

Basin, 196,105 acres (55%) of the Uinta Basin, and 265,508 acres (91%) of the Green River and 

Washakie Basins Alternative 2 footprints have been identified as having a medium or high 

sensitivity for containing cultural resources. 

 Impacts on cultural resources within these areas would be considered if leasing and future 

commercial development occur. Leasing itself has the potential to have an impact on cultural 

resources to the extent that the terms of the lease limit an agency’s ability to avoid, minimize, or 

mitigate adverse effects of proposed development on cultural properties. However, compliance 

with Section 106 of the NHPA, as well as all other pertinent laws, regulations, and policies, will 

likely result in the addition of stipulations to leases to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse 

impacts on historic properties present within a lease area or, when warranted, denial of the lease. 

Impacts of development could include the destruction of individual resources present within 

development footprints, degradation and/or destruction of near-surface resources in or near the 

development area, increased potential of loss of resources from looting or vandalism as a result 

of increased human presence/activity in the sensitive areas, and visual degradation of cultural 

setting (see Section 6.1.2.8). Any future leasing and development would be subject to 

compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA as well as all other pertinent laws, regulations, and 

policies. Compliance with these laws would result in measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate 

impacts or to denial of the lease or project. Development can also lead to scientifically beneficial 

discoveries of cultural resources that would otherwise have remained unknown. 

6.1.2.10 Indian Tribal Concerns 

 Alternative 2 (Conservation Focus) differs from Alternative 1 in that the land 

management plans for areas of oil shale development in Utah, Wyoming, and Colorado, while 

carrying forward those exclusions from oil shale leasing and development established in 2008 

and reflected in Alternative 1, would be amended to incorporate (1) all land exclusions in 

Alternative 1; (2) all ACECs analyzed in the 2008 OSTS PEIS plus additional ACEC areas 

resulting from recently completed planning efforts in Utah and Wyoming; (3) all areas that the 

BLM has identified or may identify as containing wilderness characteristics; and (4) Adobe 

Town, a “Very Rare or Uncommon Area” in Wyoming. As a result, the acreage made available 

for application for commercial lease under Alternative 2 (676,967 acres) would about a third of 

that available under Alternative 1. As with Alternative 1, making parcels available for 

application for commercial leasing will not in and of itself have adverse effects on traditional 

properties and other resources of concern to Native Americans. The leasing and development of 

the parcels, however, would increase the potential for adverse impacts. Since less land is 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-118 

available for commercial leasing, it is likely that fewer traditional properties and other resources 

important to Native Americans would be affected under Alternative 2. However, the reduction in 

impacts would not be precisely proportional to the reduction in acreage, because the nature and 

scope of the impacts of development depend on the location of the development facility and the 

steps taken to mitigate impacts. Legally required project-specific cultural resource surveys, 

NEPA analyses, and consultation with interested tribes are important steps in avoiding or 

mitigating adverse effects on tribal resources. This is particularly true for split estate lands in the 

Hill Creek Extension of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation where the tribe owns the surface 

estate and the federal government the subsurface estate. The Ute Indian Tribe has confirmed the 

presence of unspecified culturally sensitive areas in the Hill Creek extension and has requested 

that government-to-government consultation be a part of the leasing and development of 

individual parcels. Specific lease stipulations developed in consultation with affected tribes could 

reduce the impacts on resources that may be impacted by the development of specific parcels. 

Certain parcels on the Uintah and Ute Reservation would not be available due to sage-grouse 

concerns. 

6.1.2.11 Socioeconomics 

 Socioeconomic and transportation impacts of Alternative 2 would be dependent on the 

exact locations of future development. The types of impacts that could occur would be the same 

as those described in Section 4.12 and summarized in Section 6.1.1.11 for Alternative 1, but 

would be lesser in scale because of the reduced acreage available for development. The specific 

impacts would be dependent upon the technologies employed, the project size or production 

level, development time lines, mitigation measures, and the location of employee housing. 

 Under Alternative 2, it is possible that there will be property value impacts simply from 

designating land as available or not available for application for leasing; these impacts could 

result in either decreased or increased property values (see Section 4.12.1.6). 

6.1.2.12 Environmental Justice 

 Under Alternative 2, a total of 676,967 acres of public land in Colorado, Utah, and 

Wyoming would remain identified as available for application for leasing for commercial 

development of oil shale. Data in Table 6.1.2-5 show the minority and low-income composition 

of total population located in the designated oil shale development areas and associated 50-mi 

buffers in the three states (based on 2010 Census data and CEQ Guidelines). 

 Although the environmental justice impacts of Alternative 2 would be dependent on the 

exact locations of specific developments, the types of impacts that could occur as a result of 

development on lands identified as available for application for leasing under Alternative 2 

would be the same as those described in Section 4.13 and summarized in Section 6.1.1.12. 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-119 

TABLE 6.1.2-5 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 247,680 1,034 134,291 89,496 

 

White, non-Hispanic 197,489 969 114,105 75,966 

 

Hispanic or Latino 41,985 43 10,861 10,005 

 

Non-Hispanic or Latino minorities 8,206 22 9,325 3,525 

 One race 4,798 14 7,228 2,366 

 Black or African American 1,207 0 382 562 

 American Indian or Alaskan Native 1,450 7 5,944 1,179 

 Asian 1,649 6 590 498 

 Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 214 1 239 81 

 Some other race 278 0 73 46 

 Two or more races 3,408 8 2,097 1,159 

 

Total minority 50,191 364 20,186 13,530 

 

Low-income 9,280 51 4,539 6,953 

 

Minority 

 ROI 20.3 6.3 15.0 15.1 

 State 30.0 16.0 19.6 14.1 

 

Low-income 

 ROI 10.0 14.0 10.8 9.2 

 State 12.2 13.6 10.8 9.8 

6.1.2.13 Hazardous Materials and Waste Management 

 The amendment of land use plans under Alternative 2 to identify 676,967 acres of land as 

available for application for leasing for commercial oil shale development would not result in 

any hazardous material or waste management concerns. Impacts related to hazardous materials 

and wastes could occur during future development of commercial oil shale projects within the 

areas identified in Alternative 2 as available for application for commercial leasing. Such 

impacts are generally independent of location and would be unique to the technology 

combinations used for oil shale development. However, impacts from hazardous materials and 

wastes are similar for some of the ancillary support activities that would be required for 

development of any oil shale facility regardless of the technology used. These include the 

impacts from development or expansions of support facilities, such as employer-provided 

housing and power plants. 

 Hazardous materials and wastes would be used and generated during both the 

construction and operation of commercial oil shale facilities and supporting infrastructure 

(e.g., power plants). Hazardous materials impacts associated with project construction would be 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-120 

minimal and limited to the hazardous materials typically utilized in construction, such as fuels, 

lubricating oils, hydraulic fluids, glycol-based coolants and solvents, adhesives, and corrosion 

control coatings. Construction-related wastes could include landscape wastes from clearing and 

grading of the construction sites and other wastes typically associated with construction, none of 

which are expected to be hazardous (Section 4.14.1). 

 During project operations, hazardous materials would be utilized, and a variety of wastes 

(some hazardous) would be generated. Hazardous materials would include fuels, solvents, 

corrosion-control coatings, flammable fuel gases, and herbicides (for vegetation clearing and 

management at facilities or along ROWs). The types and amounts of hazardous waste generated 

during operations will depend on the specific design of the commercial oil shale project (surface 

or subsurface mining, surface retorting, in situ processes). Waste materials produced during 

operations may include spent shale, waste engine fuels and lubricants, pyrolysis water, 

flammable gases, volatile and flammable organic liquids, and heavier-molecular-weight organic 

compounds (Section 4.14.1). 

 Because the use of hazardous materials and the generation of wastes are directly related 

to the specific design of a commercial oil shale project, it is not possible to quantify projectrelated impacts of these materials. Under Alternative 2, individual facilities could be located 

anywhere within the area identified as available for leasing pending project review and 

authorization. Accidental releases of the hazardous materials or wastes could affect natural 

resources (such as water quality or wildlife) and human health and safety (see Sections 4.15 

and 6.1.2.14) at locations wherever the individual projects are sited within the Alternative 2 lease 

areas. 

6.1.2.14 Health and Safety 

 The amendment of land use plans to identify 676,967 acres of land as available for 

application for leasing for commercial oil shale development would not result in any direct 

health and safety concerns. A number of health and safety concerns, however, would be 

associated with the commercial development of oil shale projects within the areas in 

Alternative 2 identified as available for application for commercial leasing. For commercial oil 

shale development in Alternative 2, potential health and safety impacts from the construction and 

operation of commercial oil shale projects would be associated with the following activities: 

(1) constructing project facilities and associated infrastructure, (2) mining (if processing is not in 

situ) the oil shale; (3) obtaining and upgrading the crude oil, either through surface retorting or 

in situ processing; (4) transporting construction and raw materials to the upgrading facility and 

transporting product from the facility; and (5) exposing the general public to water and air 

contamination associated with oil shale development. Hazards from oil shale development 

(summarized in Table 4.15-1) could include physical injury from construction, oil shale 

processing, and vehicle transportation accidents and exposure to fugitive dust and hazardous 

materials, such as retort emissions and industrial chemicals (Section 4.15). Health and safety 

impacts would be largely restricted to the immediate workforce of each facility. Accidents could 

also affect members of the general public who could be present in the immediate vicinity of an 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-121 

accident (e.g., project-related truck accident on a public road, recreational users in areas adjacent 

to the project lease area). 

 Hazards for workers at oil shale development facilities include risks of accidental injuries 

or fatalities, lung disease caused by inhalation of particulates and other hazardous substances, 

and hearing loss. Estimates of expected injuries and fatalities can be made on the basis of 

numbers of employees and the type of work. Based on the numbers of employees projected to be 

needed for construction and operation of oil shale facilities, statistically there would be less than 

1 death and about 125 injuries per year expected per facility during construction activities, and 

less than 1 death and less than 100 injuries per year expected per facility during operations 

(NSC 2006). As a measure to decrease worker injuries, a comprehensive facility health and 

safety plan and worker safety training could be recommended to be included in the plans of 

development for proposed commercial oil shale projects. 

 Health and safety concerns are largely independent of the location of oil shale 

development facilities. However, the health and safety impacts on the general public from 

emissions from these facilities would depend both on the specific characteristics and level of 

emissions and on the distance of the emissions source from population centers. The level of air 

and water emissions would be regulated under required permits. Potential impacts on the general 

public from emissions would be assessed in future site-specific NEPA and permitting 

documentation. 

6.1.3 Impacts of Alternative 3, Research Lands Focus 

 Under Alternative 3, the BLM would amend the same eight BLM land use plans that 

would be amended under Alternative 2 (Section 6.1.2), but would designate only 32,640 acres of 

public land as available for application for leasing for commercial development of oil shale in 

Colorado and Utah. (See Section 2.3.3.2 for a complete description of Alternative 3.) Specific 

proposed land use plan amendments are provided in Appendix C. 

 Lands other than these 32,640 acres to be designated as available for application for 

leasing for commercial development of oil shale under Alternative 3 that are currently open 

would be closed to such leasing and development, that is, the difference between 2,017,741 and 

32,640 acres. As described below, the potential impacts on lands currently available for 

application for leasing for commercial development but considered in Alternative 3 for closure to 

such leasing and development would not be adverse, because no leasing or development would 

take place and, unless otherwise discussed, any benefit would accrue in proportion to the number 

of acres closed. 

 The proposed development in this alternative area includes the six 160-acre RD&D 

projects leased by the BLM in 2007, , two in Rio Blanco County approved in 2012, and one 

potential new RD&D lease in Uintah County. The seven existing projects in Rio Blanco County, 

Colorado, are evaluating in situ processes, and the one existing project in Uintah County, Utah, 

is evaluating underground mining with surface retort (see Figure 2.3-2). A total of 1,280 acres is 

currently involved in the eight projects. The eight current RD&D leases contain terms and 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-122 

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

PRLA totaling 32,000 acres. The one potential new RD&D leases is currently inactive. 

Maximum acreage of this lease, if approved, would be 640 acres, bringing the total acreage 

among all existing and potential RD&D projects to 32,640 acres as available for potential oil 

shale leasing under this alternative. 

 The BLM evaluated the environmental and socioeconomic impacts of the RD&D 

activities on the six 2007 leases prior to issuance of the leases through the preparation of EAs. 

Four separate EAs were prepared, and Findings of No Significant Impact (FONSIs) were issued 

for each project. These include separate documents for the Chevron project (BLM 2006a,b), 

EGL (now American Shale Oil [AMSO]) project (BLM 2006c,d), three Shell projects 

(BLM 2006eh), and Enefit project (BLM 2007a,b). These EAs assess only the RD&D activities 

at each project site and do not examine the potential impacts of future commercial development 

on the associated PRLAs. The two new RD&D projects completed site-specific NEPA review in 

the fall of 2012, separate from this PEIS. The impacts described would not be expected to occur 

with respect to the lands identified as not available for application for commercial oil shale 

leasing, apart from possible indirect impacts on such lands from activities that might occur on the 

RD&D and PRLA lands identified as available. 

 This section contains a summary of the impacts associated with the RD&D activities at 

each of the six project sites (including the impacts associated with the establishment of their 

utility ROWs for electric transmission lines and pipelines and the construction of access roads). 

As described in Section 2.3 of this PEIS, the RD&D leases are prior existing rights and are 

common to all four alternatives. To avoid unnecessary duplication, the impacts of the RD&Ds 

are not repeated in Sections 6.1.1, 6.1.2, and 6.1.4, but the effects of the RD&Ds under each of 

these alternatives would be the same as under Alternative 3. Unless otherwise noted, the 

information on the RD&Ds is summarized from the individual EAs, and more detailed 

information is contained in the EAs. The EAs and FONSIs identify a number of terms, 

conditions, and stipulations that will be applied to mitigate the potential impacts of the RD&D 

projects. The potential impacts of the new RD&Ds that are being considered likely will be 

similar and proportionate to the impacts of the existing RD&D projects. While any conversion of 

these RD&D leaseholds to commercial use would require separate NEPA analysis, this analysis 

presents a description of possible impacts of development on the acres that would be available 

for leasing and development under Alternative 3, which includes only those acres currently 

covered by the RD&D leases (existing and under review) and their respective PRLA. Although 

these impacts would occur in Alternatives 1, 2, and 4, because Alternative 3 would leave only

these acres available for leasing and development they are emphasized here. 

 As noted, this information is not provided in order to serve as the NEPA compliance that 

supports issuance of these leases themselves. That has been done for the existing leases in a 

separate process. Rather, the information is provided not only for its own sake (to disclose what 

is happening under all of the alternatives), but primarily to illustrate the kinds of impacts that 

might be expected from such type of development, in order to inform this allocation 

decisionmaking. 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-123 

6.1.3.1 Land Use 

 In the Piceance Basin area, the seven existing Colorado RD&D lease areas are located 

within 15 mi of each other in Rio Blanco County. They are all located between 25 and 30 mi 

southwest of the town of Meeker and 20 to 30 mi southeast of the town of Rangely. The region 

in which these lease areas are located is rural and relatively undeveloped. Existing land uses 

include open rangeland; ranching; oil and gas development; utility corridors; historic nahcolite 

and oil shale mining, as well as more recent sodium solution mining; seasonal recreation, 

including big-game hunting; and wild horse herd management (primarily at Shell Sites 1 and 3, 

within the Piceance–East Douglas Creek HMA). Land use on adjacent parcels of land should be 

largely unaffected by the initial RD&D activities, except that noise and human activity could 

alter the quality of hunting and other recreational experiences in the area and impact wild horses. 

Land use along the new utility ROWs and access roads will be impacted during the construction 

phases, but these impacts may be short-term. Although these lease areas are located in the same 

general area and will be undergoing RD&D activities during the same period of time, they are 

dispersed enough so that cumulatively, their impacts on land use will be relatively minor. 

 One of the five Colorado lease areas, Shell Site 2, is located within the Multimineral 

Zone. The Shell Site 2 RD&D activities are focused on evaluating the practicability of 

combining already developed nahcolite extraction methods with Shell’s in situ hydrocarbon 

extraction technology. Although the Chevron RD&D lease area is outside the Multimineral 

Zone, this project also will include an assessment of the development potential for nahcolite and 

dawsonite in the project area and the potential conflicts between oil shale development using 

Chevron’s in situ technology and the development of these resources. 

 By the terms of the existing RD&D leases, the operations could convert into commercial 

facilities (see Section 1.4.1 for a description of the terms and conditions). Within the Piceance 

Basin, this could lead to a relatively dense development complex of approximately 25,000 acres, 

which could dramatically affect existing land uses within the area. 

 The Enefit RD&D project is located at the White River Mine site in Uintah County, Utah. 

This 160-acre lease area is located within the Ua Tract of the 1974 Federal Prototype Oil Shale 

Leasing Program. Current land use within the RD&D lease and on adjacent lands includes oil 

and gas development, gilsonite mining, wildlife habitat, recreational use, and livestock grazing. 

The project site does not coincide with any wild horse or burro HMA. Enefit plans to conduct 

RD&D activities in three phases. On-site construction activities will not begin until Phase 2, and 

construction of the utility ROWs will not begin until Phase 3. Because this project is located at 

an existing mine site, the RD&D activities will not substantively change the existing land use 

within the leased area. Land use on adjacent parcels of land should be largely unaffected by the 

RD&D activities, except that noise and human activity could alter the quality of hunting and 

other recreational experiences. These impacts will not occur until the start of Phase 2 activities. 

Land use along the new infrastructure ROWs will be impacted during the construction phases, 

but these impacts will be largely short term. 

 Impacts could result from construction and operation of oil shale facilities that could 

occur following future approval of commercial leases and development on the 32,640 acres 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-124 

composing this alternative, including the PRLA lands. Impacts of that leasing and subsequent 

development action would be considered in project-specific NEPA analyses prior to approval of 

any commercial leases and/or development. The specific impacts on land use and the magnitude 

of those impacts are generally similar for all the projects testing in situ methods but vary slightly 

depending on project location; project size, technology employed, and scale of operations; and 

proximity to roads, transmission lines, and pipelines. Impacts associated with the Enefit project 

are different from the in situ projects because it involves underground mining with a surface 

retort facility. Impacts on various land uses that could be caused by commercial development of 

oil shale are discussed in Section 4.2 and are summarized below: 

• Commercial oil shale development, using any technology, is largely 

incompatible with other mineral development activities because each 

dominates the lease area in which it is located (with the obvious exception of 

when nacohlite production is incorporated into an oil shale lease). Oil and gas 

development is ongoing in many parts of the study area, and conflict between 

oil shale projects and oil and gas projects may occur. Oil and gas leases issued 

between 1968 and 1989 contained a stipulation that drilling of wells will occur 

only if the oil and gas lessee can establish that such drilling will not interfere 

with the mining and recovery of oil shale deposits. Oil and gas leases issued 

after January 27, 1989, do not contain this stipulation. Although it is possible 

that undeveloped portions of an oil shale lease area could be available for 

other mineral development, such development would be unlikely to occur on a 

widespread basis, except possibly in areas where a single company is 

developing multiple resources. A possible exception is being investigated as 

part of two of the RD&D projects in which nacholite mining is being 

conducted in advance of oil shale production. Existing leases for oil and gas or 

other mineral development may preclude oil shale development for some 

period of time. 

• In the Vernal RMP area, the two oil shale areas totaling 6,000 acres classified 

for in situ development overlap with the P.R. Spring STSA. Although no 

development of either oil shale or tar sands resources has occurred in this area, 

it is possible that at some point development of these resources may conflict 

with one another. 

• Where existing agricultural water rights are acquired to support oil shale 

development, existing irrigation-based agricultural uses of the land from 

which the water is acquired would be modified to support lower value dry 

land use of the lands and/or may result in a complete loss of agricultural uses. 

Some areas could be converted to nonfarm uses, depending upon local zoning 

decisions. 

• Grazing activities could be precluded by commercial oil shale development in 

those portions of the lease area that were (1) undergoing active development; 

(2) being prepared for a future development phase; (3) undergoing restoration 

after development; or (4) occupied by long-term surface facilities, such as 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-125 

production facilities, office buildings, laboratories, retorts, and parking lots. 

Depending on conditions unique to the individual grazing allotment, 

temporary reductions in authorized grazing use may be necessary because of 

loss of a portion of the forage base. It is possible, depending upon how 

commercial leases would be developed, that grazing uses might be 

accommodated on parts of the leases during the lease period. 

• The level of impact of the removal of acreage from individual grazing leases 

would be dependent upon site-specific factors regarding the grazing 

allotment(s) affected. There is a large variation in size and productivity of 

BLM grazing allotments across the PEIS study area, and the loss of up to 

5,120 acres for individual oil shale leases from larger allotments would not be 

as significant as that from smaller allotments. Some allotments could become 

completely unavailable for use. Others would lose varying percentages of 

grazing area that might affect their overall economic viability. 

• Commercial oil shale development activities are largely incompatible with 

recreational land use (e.g., hiking, biking, fishing, hunting, bird-watching, 

OHV use, and camping). Recreational uses, including OHV use, would be 

precluded from those portions of commercial lease areas involved in ongoing 

development and restoration activities. Impacts on vegetation, development of 

roads, and displacement of big game could degrade the recreational 

experiences and hunting opportunities near commercial oil shale projects. The 

impact of displacement of recreation uses from oil shale development lease 

areas would be highly dependent upon site-specific factors, especially the 

nature of existing uses on the site. 

• No ACECs are directly affected in this alternative. In Colorado, three ACECs 

are located within 1–3 miles, and they would incur indirect impacts (e.g., dust, 

increased traffic, and degraded viewshed) resulting from commercial oil shale 

development on adjacent lands or on areas within the general vicinity. 

• No lands classified as LWC would be directly affected although there are 

several LWC areas within 1–5 miles of the RD&D leases in both the Piceance 

and Uinta Basins that would be indirectly affected if the leases are fully 

developed (e.g., dust, increased traffic, and degraded viewshed). 

• Lands that would be available for application for oil shale leasing under 

Alternative 3 overlap 328 acres of the Piceance-East Douglas Creek HMA 

(Figure 6.1.3-1). Any oil shale development that occurs in HMAs would need 

to protect wild horses and burros under the Wild Free-Roaming Horse and 

Burro Act of 1971. 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-126 

6.1.3.2 Soil and Geologic Resources 

 Under Alternative 3, the eight current RD&D oil shale leases with PRLA lands in 

Colorado and Utah, totaling 32,000 acres, and one potential new RD&D lease in Utahtotaling 

640 acres, would be available for oil shale leasing (Section 2.3.3.2). In combination, the eight 

current RD&D projects are expected to result in up to 1,280 acres of disturbed land at the lease 

sites, plus additional disturbed land for access roads and utilities. Soil erosion impacts, including 

potential related impacts on surface water salinity and overall water quality (see Section 6.1.1.4), 

are of concern. The erosion hazard of the soils at each of the sites is variable. The Chevron site is 

composed of soil with moderate to very high erosion potential (BLM 2006a). The erosion 

potential at the AMSO site ranges from moderate to very high for water erosion and slight to 

moderate for wind erosion; the revegetation potential is fair to very poor for site soils 

(BLM 2006c). 

 Shell Site 1 is mostly moderately to highly erodible, but some areas are severely erodible 

by water and wind. At Shell Site 2, a small portion of the site is slightly erodible, but the bulk of 

it is moderately to highly erodible, including some severely erodible areas. Shell Site 3 has a 

wide range of erosion hazard levels, from slight to high, and also includes a portion that is 

severely erodible. At the Enefit RD&D site, the soils are slightly to moderately erodible by 

water, but have wind erodibility ranging from none to moderate. Phase 3 of the Enefit project 

will involve construction of a ROW to the site, which will add to the overall amount of disturbed 

land. Along this ROW, many soil types are present, ranging in water erodibility from none to 

very severe and ranging in wind erodibility from none to high (BLM 2007a). 

 Each of the Colorado RD&D projects will entail extensive drilling activities. Proper 

management of drill cuttings is important because they can be susceptible to water and wind 

erosion and may have a subsequent effect on water quality. At the Chevron site, drilling cuttings 

will be generated at approximately 5 injection or production wells, 20 groundwater monitoring 

wells, and 20 to 25 boreholes for tiltmeters, for collection of fracture data. At the AMSO site, 

drill cuttings will be produced by approximately 4 to 8 dewatering wells, 2 water injection wells, 

5 boreholes for heating, 4 producer wells, and additional groundwater monitoring wells. 

Anticipated drilling waste from each of the Shell sites will include cuttings from approximately 

150 boreholes for freeze-wall construction, 10 producer boreholes, 30 heater boreholes, and 

additional boreholes for groundwater monitoring wells. 

 Each of the RD&D projects will have impacts on other mineral development activities. 

Chevron’s in situ combustion technique could lead to the loss of other mineral resources, such as 

any economically extractable nahcolite or dawsonite, in or near the treated area. Because of the 

flammability of natural gas, gas wells will not be allowed within some distance of an in situ 

combustion site, likely including any directionally drilled wells targeting gas beneath the oil 

shale treatment zone. Producing gas wells are within 0.1 mi of the Chevron lease boundary. This 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-127 

FIGURE 6.1.3-1 Lands Available for Application for Oil Shale Leasing under Alternative 3 in 

Relation to Wild Horse and Burro Herd Management Areas 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-128 

site is located in the KSLA of the Piceance Basin. The nahcolite and dawsonite content beneath 

the site is to be determined through a drilling program. Coal is too deep to be technologically 

accessible. 

 The AMSO site also is within the KSLA, although the EA does not describe the sodium 

minerals present at the site. The AMSO site targets a zone above nahcolite, presumably leaving 

this mineral resource unaffected. The heating process could potentially lead to heaving and 

subsidence, with possible effects on nearby gas or oil wells. A producing gas well is within 

0.4 mi of the AMSO lease boundary. 

 As part of the RD&D activities, nahcolite solution mining will occur at Shell Site 2, 

which is located in the Multimineral Zone. The naturally occurring nahcolite at Sites 1 and 3 has 

been leached away by naturally circulating groundwater. Dawsonite, which is not soluble in 

groundwater, is present at Site 2 at an average of 5% by weight and at Site 3 at an average of 4% 

by weight across certain intervals. Natural gas wells, including producing wells and permitted 

locations awaiting drilling, are within 5 mi of Sites 1 and 3, and several are within 0.5 mi of 

Site 2. Directional drilling will be necessary for accessing gas beneath the RD&D sites, although 

technological constraints may prevent this. Coal is present at technologically infeasible depths. 

 Tar sands resources are not present on the Enefit RD&D site, although they do occur 

10 mi to the south. Coal-bed CH4 is present in the region, though no production takes place near 

the RD&D site. Coal is too deep to be minable, and no other minerals are present at the site. Two 

gilsonite veins are present along the intended ROW. Enefit will coordinate ROW construction 

with the gilsonite mining company. Natural gas leases are present at the site; Enefit will also 

coordinate with the oil and gas lessees. 

 Soil impacts, occurring during construction and reclamation, are expected to be local in 

extent. Overall impacts will be minimized through a series of conditions identified in the EAs 

and FONSIs. To mitigate impacts on nahcolite and dawsonite, the proposed actions for the 

Colorado sites call for avoiding oil shale zones with substantial deposits of sodium minerals, 

recovering the nahcolite before recovering the oil resources, or isolating the formations to avoid 

destruction of the nahcolite and dawsonite. The proposed actions will not adversely affect the 

future recovery of oil shale outside the retorted zones or of other minerals in the study area. 

 Under Alternative 3, impacts on soil and geologic resources as described in Section 4.3 

could occur wherever individual projects are located within the 32,640 acres identified as 

available for application for leasing in the two existing land use plans. 

6.1.3.3 Paleontological Resources 

 Under Alternative 3, the eight current RD&D oil shale leases with PRLA lands in 

Colorado and Utah, totaling 32,000 acres, and one potential new RD&D lease in Utah totaling 

640 acres, would be available for oil shale leasing (Section 2.3.3.2). There is a potential for 

impacts on paleontological resources at all nine RD&D oil shale lease areas, consistent with the 

common impacts discussed in Section 4.4 for commercial oil shale operations. All seven RD&D 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-129 

lease areas in the Piceance Basin near Meeker, Colorado (five ongoing sites: Chevron, AMSO, 

and Shell Sites 1, 2, and 3; and two newly approved sites: Natural Soda and ExxonMobil) are 

underlain by the Uinta Formation. The Uinta Formation is categorized as a Condition 1 and 

PFYC 4/5 unit in which significant paleontological resources are known to occur (Table 3.3-2). 

The two lease areas in the Uinta Basin in northeastern Utah (one current site, Enefit, and one 

potential new site, Aurasource) are underlain by the Uinta and Green River Formations, both of 

which are categorized as Condition 1 and PFYC 4/5 units (Table 3.3-2). Of the new acreage 

designated under Alternative 3, a total of 1,456 acres (about 76% of the 1,920 acres that would 

be available in the two new and one pending RD&D leases under Alternative 3) has been 

identified as overlying geologic formations having a high potential to contain important 

paleontological resources (Murphey and Daitch 2007). Approximately 1,121 of these acres are in 

the Piceance Basin and 335 acres are in the Uinta Basin. 

 At the Chevron and AMSO sites, there were no bedrock exposures from which 

paleontological resource potential could be directly assessed (BLM 2006a,c). Impacts on 

paleontological resources were determined to be possible at both sites, especially during drilling 

of test wells, clearing for construction of site facilities, drilling and installation of heating and 

production wells, and excavating for construction research facilities (e.g., reserve pits, access 

roads, and ROWs for power and communication lines and natural gas pipelines). To mitigate 

possible damage during such activities, the EAs (BLM 2006a,c) indicated that a BLM 

paleontological monitor would be present to identify paleontological resources during grounddisturbing activities and to spot-check areas during surface-clearing activities associated with 

facility construction. The monitor would modify or halt activities as needed to mitigate impacts 

on paleontological resources. As fossil materials are uncovered, the operator would contact the 

BLM authorized officer. The authorized officer would evaluate the materials and inform the 

operator as to whether the materials are of scientific significance and specify what mitigation 

measures (including relocation) are to be undertaken before site activities can resume. The 

authorized officer would be responsible for the stabilization and recordation of exposed materials 

and would provide technical and procedural guidelines for mitigation measures undertaken. Once 

mitigation has been completed, the authorized officer would authorize activities to resume. The 

EAs also indicated that Chevron and AMSO would train construction and operation personnel 

that collection of fossil specimens is prohibited. 

 Shell Sites 1 and 3 have been surveyed for paleontological resources (BLM 2006e). No 

paleontological resources were found during the survey at Site 1; however, the EA indicated that 

a BLM paleontologist would be notified prior to any excavation into the underlying rock 

formations. Significant fossil plants were encountered in an unnamed tongue of the Uinta 

Formation exposed in incised drainages on Site 3 (vertebrate fossils were not found); therefore 

impacts on significant paleontological resources are considered probable at Site 3 (BLM 2006e). 

Shell Site 2 has not been surveyed; therefore, the potential for significant paleontological 

resources to be present at the site is not known (although a cultural survey by Darnell [2006] 

recorded a paleontological site; see Section 6.1.3.9). The EAs for the Shell sites include the 

following mitigation measures: site avoidance, quarrying to recover a sampling of fossils present 

at the site (such as Site 3), and monitoring by the operator and authorized officer, as needed 

(similar to that described above for AMSO and Chevron). 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-130 

 Surveys have not been completed for the Natural Soda and ExxonMobil new lease areas; 

however, EAs were completed for these two sites in the fall of 2012. 

 No significant fossils were found in existing shale ore stockpiles at the Enefit lease area; 

however, known Condition 1 sites have been documented within 1 mi of the site (BLM 2007a). 

Land disturbance and construction activities along proposed utility ROWs have the potential to 

affect paleontological resources. Construction of power lines and pipelines in support of the 

RD&D project is less likely to affect paleontological resources because of the limited areas of 

bedrock near the construction location for the proposed pipeline and the limited amounts of 

ground disturbance associated with power pole placement. Possible mitigation presented in the 

EA to reduce adverse impacts includes developing standard procedures for managing the 

discovery of fossils, including stop work and notification procedures if fossils are encountered 

during construction activities. The operator would prepare a project-specific unanticipated 

discovery and monitoring plan (in consultation with the BLM) and ground disturbance within 

Condition 1 and Condition 2 areas, and shale ore stockpiles would be evaluated periodically by a 

qualified paleontologist. The operator would also inform construction and operation personnel 

that collection of fossil specimens is prohibited. 

 A survey has not been completed for the Aurasource potential new lease area; the 

proposal for this site is currently inactive. 

 Under Alternative 3, a total of about 32,400 acres within the RD&D lease area and the 

PRLA in Colorado and Utah (covering a total of 32,640 acres), about 99%, have a high potential 

for containing significant paleontological resources because they overlie stratigraphic units that 

are categorized as Condition 1 and PFYC of 4/5. Mitigation measures, as outlined in the 

respective EAs, would be followed to avoid or minimize adverse impacts. 

6.1.3.4 Water Resources 

 Under Alternative 3, the eight current RD&D oil shale leases with PRLA lands in 

Colorado and Utah, totaling 32,000 acres, and one potential new RD&D lease in Utah totaling 

640 acres, would be available for oil shale leasing (Section 2.3.3.2). Impacts on water resources 

in leased areas can be divided into water quality and water quantity issues. The former are 

particularly important to surface water, in keeping with the federal Colorado River Water Quality 

Improvement Program (CRWQIP) (P.L. 92-500) to maintain Lower Colorado Basin water 

salinity at or below certain levels. Water quantity issues are related to the water allocation under 

the Upper Colorado River Basin Compact, stream and river flows, and their effect on sediment 

erosion and deposition in channels. The water quality in the Upper Colorado River Basin, where 

the RD&D sites are located, is closely related to stream and river flows. Because water will not 

be withdrawn from surface water bodies near the sites and wastewater will be shipped off-site for 

disposal under this alternative, the impacts on surface water quantity and quality originate 

primarily from surface runoff, including potential spills. For the groundwater, potential impacts 

come from groundwater dewatering, reinjection (if used), permeability enhancement in oil shale 

productive zones, and release of contaminants in the subsurface. Natural groundwater discharge 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-131 

from seeps and springs in stream valleys will also be affected. Mitigation measures identified in 

the EAs and FONSIs focus extensively on limiting impacts on water resources. 

 During the construction phase for the RD&D sites, most of the surface water impacts are 

related to soil and vegetation disturbance that will occur as a result of clearing, excavating, and 

grading activities. These activities occur at project sites, along utility line ROWs, newly 

constructed stormwater drainage systems, spent shale disposal areas, and access roads, and will 

result in temporary increases in sediment load carried to nearby surface water bodies by surface 

runoff. Because the soils and underlying sedimentary rocks near the RD&D sites have a high salt 

content, increased surface runoff also is likely to produce higher dissolved salts in the surface 

runoff. Construction activities may cause some natural drainages to be diverted or modified, and 

new drainage channels may be created near access roads and other specific sites. These changes 

could result in increased runoff velocity and increased peak discharge. An indirect consequence 

of drainage changes could be increased rates of surface soil erosion, especially in sloped areas. If 

drill cuttings are not contained or otherwise managed properly, they could represent another 

source of increased sediment and salinity loads to surface water. The impacts on surface water 

during the construction phase can be mitigated by many of the actions identified in the EAs for 

the projects. 

 Based on environmental assessment information, at the Enefit site, mitigation of impacts 

from runoff and treated process water from retorting will likely be through collection in ponds or 

behind a retention dam (BLM 2007a). Depending on the quality of the water and the 

permeability of the soil underneath the retention dam area, water infiltrated to the subsurface 

could migrate to nearby surface water bodies and impact the surface water. At other RD&D sites, 

lined ponds will be used to hold and evaporate stormwater and process water; infiltrated water 

from the ponds will be withheld, resulting in insignificant impacts on the water resources. 

 During development of the seven RD&D facilities employing in situ technologies, single 

or multiple zones of oil shale will be fractured by using different fracturing technologies 

(e.g., water, steam, CO2, or thermal) to enhance the extraction of hydrocarbon products during 

in situ retorting (such as at the Chevron and AMSO sites). The fractures could permanently 

increase the permeability of the source rock in the productive zones. At the Chevron RD&D site, 

where horizontal fracturing will be conducted, the fracturing will be limited to individual 

production zones. The groundwater aquifers below and above the production zone will be closely 

monitored to detect inadvertent vertical fracturing. If cross-flows between the two aquifers are 

detected, fracturing intervals will be adjusted or other measures implemented to correct this 

problem. Similarly, at the AMSO site, a zone of oil shale adjacent to an aquifer will be 

preserved, allowing the production zone to remain hydraulically isolated from the aquifer. 

 In the case of the Shell ICP sites, fractures could also form vertically in rocks within the 

freeze wall, resulting in cross-flow between aquifers after the freeze wall is allowed to dissipate. 

The permeability in the retorted zone likely will be increased, allowing for greater groundwater 

flow, and could become a groundwater discharge zone for the shallower aquifers and a 

groundwater recharge zone for the deeper aquifers. Increased porosity (and permeability) will 

occur where kerogen, nahcolite, and other soluble minerals are removed from the rock. Such 

alteration of permeability will promote vertical as well as horizontal flow and transport of 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-132 

groundwater, as well as any residual hydrocarbons, chemicals used to enhance the hydrocarbon 

extraction, salts, and metals. 

 The withdrawal of groundwater will lower the water table and potentiometric surface of 

the affected aquifers. During RD&D operations, the activities that will result in groundwater 

withdrawal include (1) dewatering operations in mines or in retorted zones to prevent 

groundwater from entering work areas or production zones, and (2) drilling operations that could 

create conduits between aquifers if precautions and appropriate drilling technologies are not 

used. The withdrawals will create a cone of depression of the potentiometric surface or water 

table around each pumping well. If existing water supply wells were within the cone of 

depression, the yield of the wells could decline or the wells could go dry. In the Piceance Basin 

where the five in situ sites are located, the upper and lower aquifers (totaling 1,100 ft in 

thickness) are present above and below the Mahogany Zone of the Parachute Creek Member. 

The drawdown of water levels in the upper Parachute Creek Unit could reduce the streamflows 

in Yellow or Piceance Creeks. According to a modeling study presented in the EA for the Shell 

projects, 1 ft of groundwater drawdown could extend up to 2 mi from a dewatering well. At the 

Enefit site, the dewatering involves the Bird’s Nest Aquifer (about 115 ft thick), which is above 

the target oil shale (the Parachute Creek Member). At the Shell ICP sites, drawdown of water 

levels will be limited inside the freeze wall, and impacts of the withdrawal on local surface water 

will be minimized. At the Enefit site, the dewatering could reduce the flows of springs in Bitter 

Creek that receive groundwater discharge from the connected Bird’s Nest Aquifer. 

 Groundwater injection may have the opposite effect on hydrologically connected surface 

water bodies, if underground injection is used to dispose of formation water or wastewater. 

Injection will raise the groundwater level of the recharged aquifer near recharge wells and, 

depending on the target depth of the injection wells, may increase the flows of the seeps and 

springs or create new seeps and springs in valleys that are hydrologically connected to the 

affected aquifer. At the RD&D sites, the injected fluids will originate from different activities, 

including disposal of formation water from the production zone and injection of water to create 

fractures (hydrofracturing) in oil shale layers. The hot-water injection to recover dawsonite and 

nahcolite (used in the Shell two-step ICP) is accompanied by extraction wells and is less likely to 

cause a rise of water levels outside the production zone. 

 Impacts from groundwater–surface water interaction are primarily attributed to 

groundwater-related activities, including groundwater withdrawal and injection. Surface water 

bodies that are connected to and replenished by surficial and confined aquifers could 

consequently be affected. Because of the connectivity of the aquifer and the surface water 

bodies, the lowering of the water table could reduce or prevent the replenishment of the water 

bodies by the aquifers, thereby reducing the flow of the affected seeps, springs, and streams. The 

magnitude and the areal extent of the impact will depend on the drop or rise of the water level, 

the areal extent of the zone of influence, and seasonal factors. During low-flow periods, many 

seeps, springs, and streams in the study areas rely on groundwater discharge. 

 The surface water quality near an injection well may be adversely affected if the injection 

zone is hydraulically connected to a surface water body. During the dewatering operations, water 

from the lower aquifer will be mixed with the water from the upper aquifer. Because the water 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-133 

quality of the deeper aquifer is typically lower than that of the upper aquifer, the mixed water 

will result in decreased water quality compared with the water of the upper aquifer as well as the 

surface water bodies. The reinjection could therefore decrease the quality of hydraulically 

connected surface water through groundwater discharge at seeps and springs. 

 Once RD&D activities end at the in situ project sites and engineering controls such as the 

freeze wall are suspended, groundwater will reenter and flow through the retorted zone. Because 

the porosity of the source rock in the retorted zone (and the nahcolite and dawsonite mining 

zone, for the cases in which they are mined) will have been increased by the in situ retorting 

process, residual hydrocarbons and salts in the source rock may be readily leached and moved by 

the groundwater. The retorted zone is likely to become a potential subsurface contamination 

source for hydrocarbons, various kinds of salts, and metals. Any downgradient groundwater 

users could therefore have decreased water quality. If the contaminated groundwater is 

discharged to surface water bodies directly or through seeps and springs, the quality of the 

surface water will be adversely affected. If the underground injection method is used to dispose 

of “rinse” water from the retorted zones (e.g., the AMSO site or the Shell ICP sites in Colorado), 

the injection will cause environmental impacts similar to those described above. The magnitude 

of the impacts on groundwater and surface water will depend on the injection rate, locations of 

the injection wells, quality of injected water, and the target geologic formation. Reinjection of 

groundwater and treated process water will be done under permits managed by the affected 

states. Both the standards for treatment for reinjected water and/or designation of the aquifer into 

which injection will be permitted could minimize the potential for adverse effects on uses 

downgradient from the reinjection sites. 

 Retention ponds will be used in all RD&D sites to capture runoff from the sites and to 

minimize sediment input to surface streams. Discharge of captured runoff to surface water bodies 

will be managed through stormwater management plans and NPDES permits. The impacts of the 

discharge on the surface water quality should be minor. 

 The water sources for the RD&D sites vary. At the Chevron and AMSO sites, water use 

will be limited because of the in situ combustion technologies. Water will be trucked in or 

derived from on-site groundwater sources. Process wastewater will be trucked off-site or placed 

in evaporation ponds for disposal. The water use is not likely to cause a significant impact on 

water resources. At the Shell ICP sites, water for drilling, dust control, soil compaction, and 

drinking will be trucked in. During the operation and reclamation phase, groundwater and treated 

process water will be used. The amount of water to be consumed is unlikely to affect the 

groundwater resource. At the Enefit site, water used in Phases 1 and 2 will be trucked in. In 

Phase 3, groundwater from the alluvial aquifer connected to the White River is likely to be used. 

The amount of water to be withdrawn is small relative to the streamflow of the river so that the 

impact on the White River will be insignificant. 

 Under Alternative 3, about 23 mi of perennial streams (or about 12% of the total 

perennial streams in the Piceance Basin, including a 2-mi buffer) are within the areas identified 

for oil shale leasing in Colorado. In Utah, about 5 mi of perennial streams (or about 2% of the 

total streams in the Uinta Basin) are within Alternative 3 areas. If the technologies tested at 

RD&D sites could be commercialized and would not pose any environmental or social risks 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-134 

unacceptable to the BLM, oil shale could be developed in these areas. The streams and 

associated floodplains, wetlands, and riparian areas still could be affected. Depending on the 

technologies that are tested to be successful and restrictions on existing management plans, the 

oil shale development could use underground mining, surface mining, or in situ processing to 

obtain the oil shale. The mining and oil shale processing operations and the construction of 

supportive infrastructures could impact the water quality and streamflows in the vicinity of 

project sites, primarily through surface disturbance; drainage modification; surface water and/or 

groundwater withdrawals; construction of ponds or reservoirs; leaching of overburden material, 

mine tailings, and spent shale; traffic dust; unwanted-water discharges (may be treated before the 

discharges); alteration of the hydrologic properties of affected subsurface bedrock; and 

modification of the interaction between groundwater and surface water. These types of impacts 

are discussed in Section 4.5.1 and are not repeated here. 

6.1.3.5 Air Quality 

 Under Alternative 3, the eight current RD&D oil shale leases with PRLA lands in 

Colorado and Utah, totaling 32,000 acres, and one potential new RD&D lease in Utah totaling 

640 acres and bringing the total acreage to 32,640 acres, would be available for oil shale leasing 

(Section 2.3.3.2). Construction and operation activities associated with each of the nine RD&D 

projects have the potential to affect local air quality as a result of (1) PM releases generated 

during construction activities (e.g., clearing and grading of facility areas, shale excavation, 

operation of graders and dump trucks) and (2) exhaust emissions (NOx, CO, PM, VOC, and 

SO2) from construction equipment and vehicles (see Section 4.6). Operational releases 

(e.g., smokestack emissions from processing activities) have the potential to affect regional air 

quality and AQRVs, such as visibility and acid deposition. In addition, ozone precursors of NOx

and VOC from oil shale development could exacerbate wintertime high-ozone occurrences 

already prevalent in the area. 

 During all phases of oil shale development, GHG emissions of primarily CO2 and lesser 

amounts of CH4 and N2O from combustion sources could contribute to climate change to some 

extent. Appendices A and B summarize the emissions currently available for OSTS technologies. 

 The EAs prepared for the RD&D projects (BLM 2006a,c,e, 2007a) identified proposed 

construction and operations activities, quantified potential air pollutant emissions levels, 

predicted potential air quality impacts using atmospheric dispersion modeling methods, and 

compared potential impacts with appropriate significance threshold levels. The air quality 

analyses presented in the EAs indicate that no significant adverse, direct, or cumulative air 

quality impacts are likely to occur. Individual RD&D lessees may also apply to convert their 

160-acre leases (plus 4,960 adjacent acres, or 480 acres for the two 2012 leases) to a 20-year 

commercial-scale lease once specific requirements are met. 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-135 

6.1.3.6 Noise 

 Ambient noise levels may be affected as a result of RD&D activities at the nine project 

sites during the construction and operations phases. The EAs prepared for the RD&D projects 

(BLM 2006a,c,e, 2007a) provide some quantification of the expected noise levels and, along 

with the FONSIs, identify measures that will be taken to mitigate noise impacts. Specifically, at 

the seven in situ projects in Colorado, noise impacts could occur as a result of construction 

activities (e.g., clearing, excavation, grading, paving, and building construction); drilling wells; 

use of pumps, generators, and transformers; flaring; vehicular traffic; and, at the AMSO project 

site, use of a steam boiler. No sensitive human receptors are located within 0.5 mi of the Chevron 

and Shell project sites and 1 mi of the AMSO project site. 

 At Enefit’s underground mine and surface retort project in Utah, noise impacts could 

occur as a result of construction activities; mining activities; use of a crusher and conveyor belt 

system; operation of a horizontal rotary kiln; use of pumps, generators, and transformers; and 

vehicular traffic. Noise impacts elsewhere in the 32,640 acres currently available for leasing 

would be the same as those described in Section 4.7, and their effects would be highly location 

dependent. 

6.1.3.7 Ecological Resources 

 Under Alternative 3, a total of 32,640 acres of public land would be made available 

within Colorado and Utah for application for leasing for commercial development of oil shale. 

These lands support a wide variety of biota and their habitats (Section 3.7). Ecological resources 

in these areas would not be affected by the identification of future lands available for application 

for leasing or by amendment of land use plans to incorporate these lease areas. However, 

ecological resources in and around these areas could be affected by future commercial 

development of oil shale in these areas. The following sections describe the potential impacts on 

ecological resources that may result from commercial oil shale development within the areas 

identified as available for application for commercial leasing under Alternative 3. 

 The magnitude of the impact on specific ecological resources that could be affected by 

commercial oil shale development in areas identified as available for application for commercial 

leasing in Alternative 3 would depend on the specific location of the commercial oil shale 

projects as well as on specific project design. 

 6.1.3.7.1 Aquatic Resources. Under Alternative 3, a total of 32,000 acres of land in 

Colorado and in Utah have already been allocated for RD&D projects and surrounding PRLA 

lands; an additional 640 acres of land are included in one pending RD&D proposal. There are no 

impacts on aquatic habitats associated with this land use designation. However, as described in 

Section 4.8.1.1, impacts could result from post-lease construction and operation on RD&D and 

PRLA lands if the RD&D projects are converted to commercial operations. These impacts will 

be considered in project-specific NEPA analyses that will be conducted prior to the leasing 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-136 

(including, but not limited to, conversion from RD&D to commercial lease) and development 

phases of projects. 

 Potential impacts on aquatic resources from oil shale development on RD&D and PRLA 

lands could result primarily from increased turbidity and sedimentation, changes to water table 

levels, degradation of surface water quality (e.g., alteration of water temperature, salinity, and 

nutrient levels), release of toxic substances to surface water, and increased public access to 

aquatic habitats as described in Section 4.8.1.1. As described in Section 4.8.1.1, there is a 

potential for activities in upland areas to affect surface water and groundwater beyond the area 

where surface disturbance or water withdrawals are occurring. Consequently, the analysis here 

considers the potential for impacts on waterways up to 2 mi beyond the boundary of the lands 

that could be allocated for potential leasing under this alternative. However, as project 

development activities become more distant from waterways, the potential for negative effects 

on aquatic resources are reduced. For the analysis of potential impacts under each of the 

alternatives considered in the PEIS, it was assumed that the potential for negative impacts on 

aquatic resources increases as the area potentially affected (i.e., the area that could be considered 

for leasing) increases and as the number and extent of waterways within a 2-mi zone surrounding 

those areas increase. 

 Under Alternative 3, there is no perennial stream habitat within the Piceance and Uinta 

Basins that is directly overlain by areas that are potentially available for oil shale development. 

When an additional 2-mi zone surrounding these areas is considered, there are 7 perennial 

streams and about 28 mi of perennial stream habitat that could be affected by future development 

activities (Table 6.1.1-4). Because there are no existing or under review RD&D leases in the 

Green River or Washakie Oil Shale Basins of Wyoming, aquatic resources within those areas 

would not be affected by oil shale development under this alternative, because such areas would 

be excluded from application for commercial oil shale leasing and development. The types of 

aquatic habitats and organisms that could be impacted by future development in the vicinity of 

the Piceance and Uinta Basins are described in Section 3.7.1, although specific impacts would 

depend upon the locations and methods of extraction. Project-specific NEPA analyses would be 

conducted prior to any future leasing decisions (including, but not limited to, conversion from 

RD&D to commercial lease). 

 Six RD&D projects that have already been initiated within the Piceance and Uinta Basins 

would continue to operate under this alternative. Potential impacts on aquatic resources from 

those projects, derived from information provided in previously prepared NEPA documents 

(BLM 2006a,c,e, 2007a), are summarized here. It is anticipated that impacts from the two newly 

approved and one remaining potential RD&D leases would be similar to those of the six ongoing 

RD&D leases. The potential impacts on aquatic resources discussed in Section 4.8.1.1 potentially 

could occur at each of the RD&D project sites, although the magnitude of the impacts would be 

less than those discussed for full-scale commercial operations. No perennial streams occur 

immediately within the 160-acre tracts where the RD&D projects are sited. Within the Uinta 

Basin, the White River (perennial) and Evacuation Creek (intermittent tributary of the White 

River) are located more than 0.75 mi from the Enefit project area. The seven RD&D projects 

planned within the Piceance Basin are located 0.25 mi or more from the nearest perennial water 

bodies (Hunter Creek, Black Sulphur Creek, Corral Gulch, Ryan Gulch, and Willow Creek). A 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-137 

combined ROW for a power line, communication lines, and a natural gas pipeline will be 

constructed across Hunter Creek as part of the Chevron RD&D project, but no such stream 

crossings are included as part of the remaining RD&D projects within the Piceance Basin. While 

portions of Black Sulphur Creek may have habitat suitable for cutthroat trout, such areas are 

located upstream from the proposed RD&D sites, and no erosion or sedimentation impacts on 

cutthroat trout habitats are anticipated under Alternative 3. The use of mitigation measures 

identified in the EAs and FONSIs, including erosion control practices, dust suppression 

techniques, limiting of the length of time for completing stream crossings, use of horizontal 

directional drilling to install pipelines under perennial streambeds, and restoration of disturbed 

areas upon project completion, will greatly reduce or eliminate the potential for effects on 

aquatic habitats and species from erosion or sedimentation. A relatively small amount of land 

surface would be affected by the RD&D projects (160 acres per project), which would limit the 

potential for large amounts of erosion or sedimentation to occur in specific watersheds. 

However, the amount of land affected could increase to up to 32,640 acres as PRLAs are 

developed during conversion to a commercial operation. 

 Any changes in the elevation of the water table or in the quality of discharged 

groundwater that occur as a result of RD&D operations could negatively affect nearby aquatic 

habitats and the species they support. Dewatering activities could result in drawdown of 

surrounding water tables, while reinjection of water could result in localized increases in the 

elevation of the water table. Preliminary groundwater modeling results for the Shell RD&D sites 

indicate that up to 1 ft of aquifer drawdown could extend for up to 2 mi from the dewatering well 

locations in the Piceance Basin. It is anticipated that such a drawdown will have a relatively 

minor effect on water quantity in nearby perennial streams. Very small amounts of depletion are 

expected (about 19 ac ft/yr at each of the three Shell test sites), and during some phases of 

operations an increase in flow may be realized. No depletions are expected for the AMSO or 

Chevron projects. It is anticipated that dewatering or recharge at well sites associated with the 

RD&D projects (existing and pending) under Alternative 3 will have minor effects on water 

quantity in perennial stream habitats. However, the conversion of RD&D projects to commercial 

developments may increase impacts on aquatic biota in perennial streams. 

 Dewatering and reinjection wells have a potential to inadvertently allow connection 

between aquifers with differing water quality parameters (Section 4.5). In addition, groundwater 

passing through the retorted zone associated with in situ oil shale operations could pick up 

residual hydrocarbons, various salts, and metals and discharge this contaminated water into 

nearby stream systems (Section 4.5). Depending upon the level of changes to water quality or the 

concentrations of specific contaminants, aquatic organisms in receiving streams could be 

adversely affected. The potential for impacts from contaminated groundwater could be mitigated, 

in some cases, by pumping water out of the retorted zone and treating it before reinjecting it into 

the portion of the aquifer located downgradient of the retorted zone. This approach is proposed 

for the AMSO RD&D site in the Piceance Basin, and impacts on aquatic organisms are expected 

to be minor, based on the assumption that well locations, treatment procedures, and withdrawal 

and reinjection rates are properly selected. Similar treatment operations have not been proposed 

for the remaining RD&D sites in the Piceance Basin, and it is anticipated that some impacts on 

aquatic organisms could occur at these remaining locations. In situ retorting will not occur in the 

Uinta Oil Shale Basin under Alternative 3. Rather, surface retorting will be implemented, and 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-138 

spent oil shale will be disposed of either off-site or in an engineered surface impoundment that 

will be designed to prevent off-site discharge of contaminated runoff. Contaminated water will 

be temporarily stored in aboveground storage tanks prior to being sent off-site for treatment and 

disposal. 

 A potential exists for toxic materials (e.g., fuel, lubricants, and herbicides) to be 

accidentally introduced into waterways during construction and maintenance activities or as the 

result of leaks or spills from pipelines and on-site fuel and material storage areas. The mitigation 

measures identified in the EAs and FONSIs will effectively minimize the risk for such releases 

and resulting impacts. 

 In addition to the potential for the direct impacts identified above, indirect impacts on 

fisheries could occur as a result of increased public access to remote areas via newly constructed 

access roads and utility corridors. However, as described in Section 4.8.1.1, it is anticipated that 

impacts on fishery resources from increased access associated with oil shale development would 

be minor. 

6.1.3.7.2 Plant Communities and Habitats. Under Alternative 3, a total of 32,000 acres 

of land in Colorado and in Utah have already been allocated for RD&D projects and surrounding 

PRLA lands; an additional 640 acres of land is included in the one remaining RD&D proposal. 

There are no impacts on plant communities and habitats associated with this land use 

designation. Impacts could result, however, from post-lease construction and operation as 

described in Section 4.8.1.2. These impacts would be considered in greater detail in projectspecific NEPA analyses that would be conducted at the lease (including, but not limited to, 

conversion from RD&D to commercial lease) and development phases of projects. 

 Land areas allocated for commercial oil shale development under Alternative 3 support a 

wide variety of plant communities and habitats (see Section 3.7.2). These areas include 

approximately 39 acres that are currently identified in BLM land use plans for the protection of 

sensitive plant species and remnant vegetation associations. Direct and indirect impacts could be 

incurred during project construction and operation, extending over a period of several decades 

(especially within facility and infrastructure footprints) (see Section 4.8.1.2). Some impacts, such 

as habitat loss, could continue beyond the termination of oil shale production. 

 Direct impacts could include the destruction of vegetation and habitat during land 

clearing on the lease site and where ancillary facilities such as access roads, pipelines, 

transmission lines, employer-provided housing, and new power plants would be located. Soils 

disturbed during construction would be susceptible to the introduction and establishment of 

non-native invasive species, which in turn could greatly reduce the success of establishment of 

native plant communities during reclamation of project areas and create a source of future 

colonization and subsequent degradation of adjacent undisturbed areas. Plant communities and 

habitats could also be adversely affected by changes in water quality or availability, resulting in 

plant mortality or reduced growth, with subsequent changes in community composition and 

structure, and declines in habitat quality. Indirect impacts on terrestrial and wetland habitats on 

or off the project site could result from land clearing and exposed soil; soil compaction; and 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-139 

changes in topography, surface drainage, and infiltration characteristics. These impacts could 

lead to changes in the abundance and distribution of plant species and changes in community 

structure, as well as the introduction or spread of invasive species. 

 Affected plant communities and habitats could incur short- and/or long-term changes in 

species composition, abundance, and distribution. While many impacts would be localized 

(occurring within the construction and operation footprints and in the immediate surrounding 

area), the introduction of invasive species could affect much larger areas. The nature and 

magnitude of these impacts, as well as the communities or habitats affected, would depend on 

the location of the areas where project construction occurs and where facilities are located, the 

plant communities and habitats present in those areas, and the mitigation measures implemented 

to address impacts. 

 The area available for lease application under Alternative 3 includes locations that 

support oil shale endemic plant species. Local populations of oil shale endemics, which typically 

occur as small scattered populations on a limited number of sites, could be reduced or lost as a 

result of oil shale development activities. The establishment and long-term survival of these 

species on reclaimed land may be difficult. 

 No ACECs are included within the Alternative 3 RD&D footprint, including PRLAs; 

however, several ACECs that support rare plant species and remnant vegetation associations are 

located within 5 mi of the RD&D footprint: Duck Creek (0.8 mi), Dudley Bluffs (1.3 mi), and 

Ryan Gulch (1.0 mi). Although direct impacts within these ACECs would not occur, indirect 

impacts, such as those associated with fugitive dust or hydrologic changes, could potentially 

occur. Impacts would generally decrease with increasing distance. 

 Within the area available for lease application under Alternative 3, the eight RD&D 

project sites encompass a total of 1,280 currently leased acres, 1,120 acres in the Piceance Basin 

(the AMSO, Chevron, ExxonMobil, Natual Soda, and three Shell sites) and 160 acres in the 

Uinta Basin (the Enefit site). Also included under this alternative is the proposed Aurasource 

RD&D site in the Uinta Basin, totaling 160 acres. The PRLAs associated with each of the 

RD&D sites could potentially be available, and potentially developed, under any of the 

alternatives. 

 Impacts on vegetation, wetlands and riparian areas, and ephemeral streams will vary 

among the RD&D project sites. On the Chevron site, about 100 acres of sagebrush steppe 

community will be cleared. The sagebrush steppe at this site comprises Wyoming big sagebrush 

and associated shrubs, herbaceous species, and scattered pinyon pine and juniper. The impacts 

will extend throughout the duration of the project, with the cleared area remaining unvegetated 

for up to 10 years. Following site reclamation, herbaceous vegetation will likely become 

reestablished in 1 to 2 years, while sagebrush will take about 20 years to return and pinyon at 

least 50 years. Indirect impacts could include increased soil erosion and the invasion of noxious 

weeds or non-native species, which could reduce restoration success, introduce invasive species 

into nearby undisturbed areas, and reduce biodiversity, with the decline and possible eventual 

replacement of native species by non-natives. In addition, the replacement of native species by 

noxious weeds could result in an increase in the intensity and frequency of fires and a change in 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-140 

soil nutrient regimes. Plant community structure could also be impacted by creating, eliminating, 

or changing the density of vegetation layers or canopy cover. No wetlands or riparian areas occur 

on the Chevron RD&D project site. However, the ROW for the electric transmission line, 

communications lines, and natural gas pipeline will cross approximately 0.1 mi of Hunter Creek, 

a perennial stream, resulting in disturbance of the wetland and riparian vegetation communities 

along Hunter Creek, including mature pinyon-juniper woodland. Herbaceous species will likely 

become reestablished in 1 to 3 years; however, the loss of pinyon-juniper woodland will be a 

long-term impact. Indirect impacts could include lower recruitment of native species resulting 

from mixing of topsoil and subsoil, alteration of the hydrology of the wetland and riparian areas, 

inhibition of seed germination, and an increase in the potential for siltation because of soil 

compaction and rutting. 

 At the AMSO RD&D project site, up to 35 acres will be cleared of vegetation, with an 

additional acre cleared along the utility ROW. A total of 28 acres of sagebrush shrubland and 

8 acres of pinyon-juniper woodland will be removed. Some vegetation, primarily grasses and 

small shrub species, will be allowed to reestablish on portions of the site during operations. 

Pinyon-juniper woodland, however, will be lost until reclamation of the site is completed. 

Restoration of vegetation communities similar to those existing on the sites will likely require 

1 to 2 years for herbaceous vegetation, 20 to 75 years for big sagebrush communities, and 

100 to 300 years for pinyon-juniper woodland. Potential indirect impacts from vegetation 

removal could include increased soil erosion and the invasion of noxious weeds and non-native 

plant species. Effects of the invasion of noxious weeds and non-native species could include the 

decline and possible eventual replacement of native species by non-natives, increased soil 

erosion, and reduction or fragmentation of habitat. The AMSO RD&D project site does not 

contain wetlands or riparian areas, and no wetlands will be permanently filled or drained as a 

result of proposed construction activities. Dewatering and reinjection of formation groundwater 

will be conducted during operation of the AMSO project and could possibly affect groundwater 

fluctuations or discharges to surface water in the vicinity. Wetland and riparian areas along 

Black Sulphur Creek, a perennial stream, or Ryan Gulch, an intermittent stream, located 1 and 

2 mi from the site, respectively, could be indirectly affected if they are hydrologically connected 

with the groundwater units involved and if changes in groundwater levels or discharges to 

surface water occur. 

 The majority of the vegetation on the three Shell RD&D project sites will be cleared. 

Potential indirect impacts from vegetation removal may include increased soil erosion, invasion 

of noxious weeds and non-native plant species, habitat fragmentation, and generation of fugitive 

dust. Effects of invasion of noxious weeds and non-native species could include reduced 

biodiversity, with the decline and possible eventual replacement of native species by non-natives. 

Plant community structure could also be impacted by creating, eliminating, or changing the 

density of vegetation layers or canopy cover. Replacement of native species by noxious weeds 

could also result in an increase in the frequency and intensity of fires and a change in soil 

nutrient regimes. Impacts on vegetation will extend throughout the duration of the Shell projects, 

including the reclamation phase, covering a period of 20 years or longer. Restoration of 

vegetation communities similar to those existing on the sites will require 1 to 2 years for 

herbaceous vegetation, 20 to 75 years for big sagebrush communities, and 100 to 300 years for 

pinyon-juniper woodland. 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-141 

 On Shell Site 1, 80% of the vegetation will be cleared for construction and operations; 

vegetation not cleared will be lightly disturbed. Approximately 96 acres of pinyon-juniper 

woodland, 49 acres of upland sagebrush shrubland, and 2 acres of bottomland sagebrush 

shrubland will be cleared. Previously, 13 acres of the site were impacted by the construction of 

well pads and associated access roads. Construction of the site access road will also impact 

upland sagebrush shrubland and pinyon-juniper woodland. About 110 acres will be cleared on 

Shell Site 2. Previously, 50 acres of the site were disturbed and will not be used for in situ 

testing. Vegetation clearing will primarily impact upland sagebrush shrubland composed of 

Wyoming big sagebrush and associated shrubs and grasses, and will include 85 acres of 

shrubland with mixed pinyon pine and Utah juniper, 23 acres of shrubland, and 2 acres of 

pinyon-juniper woodland. Vegetation on 75% of Shell Site 3 will be removed; vegetation not 

cleared will be lightly disturbed. Vegetation clearing will impact approximately 103 acres of 

upland sagebrush shrubland, 48 acres of pinyon-juniper woodland, and 9 acres of bottomland 

sagebrush shrubland. 

 No wetlands or riparian habitats occur on the three Shell project sites or proposed routes 

for access roads. No streams were identified on Shell Test Site 1. On Test Site 2, approximately 

2,000 ft of intermittent stream channels are present and could be impacted by construction and 

operation activities associated with the project. These streams are tributaries of Stake Springs 

Draw, an intermittent stream with segments of perennial flow in association with springs and 

seeps. About 2,100 ft of an intermittent stream, a tributary of Big Duck Creek, is located on 

Site 3 and could be impacted by project activities. About 1,200 ft of the stream channel will be 

located in the immediate area of major facilities. 

 At the Enefit project site in Utah, in addition to development of the site, ROWs for an 

access road, transmission line, and pipeline will be constructed. Vegetation on the site and along 

the ROWs includes sagebrush shrubland, pinyon-juniper shrubland, greasewood flats, saltbush 

shrublands, and grassland communities with scattered shrubs. Approximately 134 acres of 

upland habitat will be disturbed by activities associated with the project. The greatest impact 

(63%) will occur in big sagebrush shrubland. Approximately 82 acres of the 160-acre site have 

been previously disturbed by development of an underground mining operation and surface 

storage of mined shale. No wetlands or riparian areas occur on the Enefit site; however, 

ephemeral streams are present. The proposed electric transmission line and pipeline routes will 

cross the White River, a perennial stream, as well as a number of ephemeral streams. The 

transmission line will also cross Evacuation Creek, an intermittent stream. Riparian and wetland 

areas occur along the White River and Evacuation Creek at the crossing locations. Wetlands and 

riparian areas will be avoided to the extent practicable; however, impacts on riparian habitat near 

the water supply wells will occur. The transmission line and pipeline will cross the White River 

100-year floodplain, and the water supply wells will be located near the White River, within the 

100-year floodplain. Cottonwood, Russian olive, and tamarisk are common species in White 

River riparian areas. Enefit, which recently acquired the site from OSEC, might propose a 

different plan that would have different impacts. 

 Impacts on plant communities during construction and operations on the ExxonMobil and 

Natural Soda proposed project sites in the Piceance Basin would likely affect big sagebrush 

shrubland and pinyon-juniper woodland, the predominant cover types on those sites 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-142 

(USGS 2004d). While these cover types are roughly equal in area on the ExxonMobil site, the 

pinyon-juniper woodland constitutes about two-thirds of the Natural Soda site. Intermittent 

streams on these sites, tributaries of Yellow Creek, could potentially be affected. Impacts would 

depend on project configuration within the RD&D site, and locations of roads, pipelines, 

transmission lines, or other infrastructure. 

 Impacts on plant communities during construction and operations on the Aurasource 

proposed project site in the Uinta Basin would likely affect pinyon-juniper woodland, the 

predominant cover type on that site, representing just over half of the area (USGS 2004d). 

Additional cover types present that could be affected include pinyon-juniper shrubland and big 

sagebrush shrubland. Intermittent streams on this site, tributaries of Evacuation Creek, could 

potentially be affected. Impacts would depend on project configuration within the RD&D site 

and on locations of roads, pipelines, transmission lines, or other infrastructure. 

6.1.3.7.3 Wildlife. Under Alternative 3, a total of 32,000 acres of land in Colorado and 

in Utah have already been allocated for RD&D projects and surrounding PRLA lands. An 

additional 640 acres of land are included in one potential new lease in Utah. Impacts on wildlife 

could occur from post-lease construction and operations as described in Section 4.8.1.3. The 

areas identified for leasing support a diverse array of wildlife and habitats (see Section 3.7.3). 

Various stipulations are included in the BLM RMPs that provide protection for various wildlife 

species. These include lands designated as (1) NSO (where BLM does not allow long-term 

ground-disturbing activities [i.e., with an impact that would last longer than 2 years]), (2) CSU 

(where the BLM places special restrictions, including shifting a ground-disturbing activity by 

more than 200 m from the proposed location to another location to protect a specific resource 

such as a raptor nest), and (3) TL (where the BLM may allow specified activities, but not during 

certain sensitive seasons such as when raptors are nesting or when big game are on their winter 

ranges). The only stipulations identified for Alternative 3 are the protection of 78 acres of big 

game severe winter range and 483 acres of mule deer and elk summer ranges in Colorado. 

 The Alternative 3 areas identified as available for leasing overlap areas identified by state 

natural resource agencies as seasonal habitat for big game species. These areas include mule deer 

and elk winter and summer ranges (Figures 6.1.3-2 and 6.1.3-3). Table 6.1.3-1 presents the 

acreage of these habitats, identified by state, that occur in the Alternative 3 lease areas and could 

be impacted by potential future commercial oil shale development in these areas. 

 Impacts on wildlife from commercial oil shale projects (see Section 4.8.1.3) could occur 

in a number of ways and would be related to (1) habitat loss, alteration, or fragmentation; 

(2) disturbance and displacement of biota; (3) mortality; (4) exposure to hazardous materials; and 

(5) increase in human access. These impacts can result in changes in species distribution and 

abundance; changes in habitat use; changes in behavior; collisions with structures or vehicles; 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-143 

FIGURE 6.1.3-2 Lands Available for Application for Oil Shale Leasing under Alternative 3 in 

Relation to the Summer and Winter Ranges of the Mule Deer 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-144 

FIGURE 6.1.3-3 Lands Available for Application for Oil Shale Leasing under Alternative 3 in 

Relation to the Summer and Winter Ranges of the Elk 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-145 

changes in predator populations; and chronic or 

acute toxicity from hydrocarbons, herbicides, or 

other contaminant exposures. 

 Wildlife could also be affected by human 

activities not directly associated with the oil 

shale project or its workforce, but instead 

associated with the potentially increased human 

access to BLM-administered lands that had 

previously received little use. The construction 

of new access roads or improvements to old 

access roads may lead to increased human access 

into the area. Potential impacts associated with 

increased access include (1) the disturbance of 

wildlife from human activities, including an 

increase in legal and illegal take and an increase 

of invasive vegetation, (2) an increase in the incidence of fires, and (3) increased runoff that 

could adversely affect riparian or other wetland areas that are important to wildlife. 

6.1.3.7.4 Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species. Under Alternative 3, a total 

of 32,640 acres would be available for seven current RD&D leases in Colorado, one current 

RD&D lease in Utah, and one potential new lease in Utah, as well as for the PRLA lands 

associated with each RD&D lease, existing and potential. There would be no potential leases 

available in Wyoming under this Alternative. A summary of this alternative is provided in 

Table 2.3.2-2. There would be no impacts on threatened and endangered species associated with 

identifying lands as available for application for commercial leasing. Impacts could result, 

however, from post-lease construction and operation as described in Section 4.8.1.4. These 

impacts would be considered in project-specific NEPA analyses that would be conducted at the 

lease (including, but not limited to, conversion from RD&D to commercial lease) and 

development phases of projects. There are no identified stipulations for the protection of 

threatened, endangered, or sensitive species. 

 Under Alternative 3, 42 of the 69 federal candidate, BLM-designated sensitive, and statelisted species listed in Table 6.1.3-2, and 9 of the 18 federally listed threatened or endangered 

species listed in Table 6.1.3-3 could occur in areas that would remain available for application 

for leasing. This determination is based on records of occurrence in project counties of Colorado 

and Utah, species occurrences from state natural heritage programs,9 and the presence of 

 

9 Spatial data were obtained from state natural heritage program or conservation offices that represented USGS 

quad-level or township range-level occurrences of species (CNHP 2011; UDWR 2011; WYNDD 2011a). A 

spatial analysis was performed to determine the distance of recorded occurrences of each species to the potential 

lease areas. For species tracked in these state databases, these distance measurements are provided in 

Tables 6.1.3-2 and 6.1.3-3. 

TABLE 6.1.3-1 State-Identified Elk and 

Mule Deer Habitat Present in the 

Alternative 3 Oil Shale Lease Areas 

Habitat Description 

Area of Habitat (acres) 

Colorado Utah Total 

 

Mule Deer 

Winter habitat 1,121 335 1,456 

Summer habitat 483 0 483 

 

Elk 

Winter habitat 1,121 335 1.456 

Summer habitat 483 0 483 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-146 

TABLE 6.1.3-2 Potential Effects of Commercial Oil Shale Development under Alternative 3 on 

BLM-Designated Sensitive Species, Federal Candidates for Listing, State-Listed Species, and State 

Species of Special Concern 

Scientific Name Common Name Statusa

States and Counties 

within the Study Area 

in Which Species 

May Occur Potential for Effectb

 

Plants 

Amsonia jonesii Jones blue star BLM-S UT–Duchesne, 

Emery, Garfield, 

Grand, San Juan, 

Uintah, Wayne 

No impact. This species is not known to 

occur in the vicinity of any project areas. 

Nearest occurrences are approximately 

30 mi from the project area in Utah.

 

Aquilegia 

scopulorum var.

goodrichii 

Utah columbine BLM-S UT–Carbon, 

Duchesne, Emery, 

Grand, Uintah 

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the project area.

 

Arabis vivariensis Park rockcress BLM-S UT–Uintah Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the project area.

 

Astragalus 

detritalis 

Debris milkvetch BLM-S CO–Rio Blanco; 

UT–Duchesne, Uintah 

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the project area.

Quad-level occurrences of this species 

intersect the project area in Utah.

 

Astragalus 

duchesnensis 

Duchesne 

milkvetch 

BLM-S CO–Rio Blanco; 

UT–Duchesne, Uintah 

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the project area. 

Quad-level occurrences are within 8 mi 

from the project area in Utah. 

 

Astragalus 

equisolensis 

Horseshoe 

milkvetch 

BLM-S UT–Uintah Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the project area.

 

Astragalus 

hamiltonii 

Hamilton’s 

milkvetch 

BLM-S UT–Uintah Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the project area.

 

Astragalus 

musiniensis 

Ferron milkvetch BLM-S CO–Garfield; 

UT–Emery, Garfield, 

Grand, Wayne 

No impact. This species is not known to 

occur in the vicinity of any project areas. 

Nearest occurrences are approximately 

30 mi from the project area in Utah.

 

Astragalus 

naturitensis 

Naturita milkvetch BLM-S CO–Garfield; 

UT–San Juan 

No impact. This species is not known to 

occur in the vicinity of any project areas. 

Nearest occurrences are approximately 

25 mi from the project area in Colorado.

 

Bolophyta 

ligulata 

Ligulate feverfew BLM-S CO–Rio Blanco Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the project area. 

Quad-level occurrences are within 13 mi 

from the project area in Utah. 

 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-147 

TABLE 6.1.3-2 (Cont.)

Scientific Name Common Name Statusa

States and Counties 

within the Study Area 

in Which Species 

May Occur Potential for Effectb

 

Plants (Cont.) 

Cirsium ownbeyi Ownbey’s thistle BLM-S; 

WY-SC 

UT–Uintah No impact. This species is not known to 

occur in the vicinity of any project areas. 

Nearest occurrences are approximately 

20 mi from the project area in Colorado.

 

Cleomella 

palmeriana var. 

goodrichii 

Goodrich cleomella BLM-S UT–Uintah Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the project area.

 

Cryptantha 

barnebyi 

Barneby’s cat’s-eye BLM-S UT–Uintah Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the project area.

 

Cryptantha 

caespitosa 

Caespitose cat’seye BLM-S CO–Rio Blanco; 

UT–Carbon, 

Duchesne, Uintah 

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the project area. 

Quad-level occurrences are within 8 mi 

from the project area in Utah. 

 

Cryptantha 

grahamii

Graham’s cat’s-eye BLM-S UT–Uintah Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the project area.

 

Cryptantha 

rollinsii 

Rollins’ cat’s eye BLM-S; 

WY-SC 

CO–Rio Blanco; 

UT–Duchesne, 

San Raphael, Uintah, 

Wayne 

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the project area.

Quad-level occurrences of this species 

intersect the project areas in Colorado 

and Utah.

 

Cymopterus 

duchesnensis 

Uinta Basin springparsley BLM-S CO–Rio Blanco; 

UT–Duchesne, Uintah 

No impact. This species is not known to 

occur in the vicinity of any project areas. 

Nearest occurrences are approximately 

20 mi from the project area in Utah.

 

Eriogonum 

contortum 

Grand buckwheat BLM-S CO–Garfield; 

UT–Grand 

No impact. This species is not known to 

occur in the vicinity of any project areas. 

Nearest occurrences are approximately 

30 mi from the project area in Utah.

 

Eriogonum 

ephedroides 

Ephedra buckwheat BLM-S CO–Rio Blanco; 

UT–Uintah 

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the project area.

Quad-level occurrences of this species 

intersect the project area in Utah.

 

Frasera 

ackermanae 

Ackerman frasera BLM-S UT–Uintah Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the project area.

 

Gentianella 

tortuosa 

Utah gentian BLM-S CO–Rio Blanco; 

UT–Duchesne, 

Emery, Garfield, 

Uintah 

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the project area. 

Quad-level occurrences are within 7 mi 

from the project area in Colorado. 

 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-148 

TABLE 6.1.3-2 (Cont.)

Scientific Name Common Name Statusa

States and Counties 

within the Study Area 

in Which Species 

May Occur Potential for Effectb

 

Plants (Cont.) 

Gilia stenothyrsa Narrow-stem gilia BLM-S CO–Rio Blanco; 

UT–Carbon, 

Duchesne, Emery, 

Uintah 

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the project area.

Quad-level occurrences of this species 

intersect the project area in Utah.

 

Hymenoxys 

lapidicola 

Rock hymenoxys BLM-S UT–Uintah Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the project area.

 

Lepidium huberi Huber’s 

pepperplant 

BLM-S UT–Uintah Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the project area.

 

Lesquerella 

parviflora 

Piceance 

bladderpod 

BLM-S CO–Garfield, 

Rio Blanco 

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the project area.

Quad-level occurrences of this species 

intersect the project area in Colorado.

 

Listera borealis Northern twayblade BLM-S CO–Garfield; 

UT–Duchesne, 

San Juan 

No impact. This species is not known to 

occur in the vicinity of any project areas. 

Nearest occurrences are approximately 

50 mi from the project area in Colorado.

 

Mentzelia 

goodrichii 

Goodrich’s 

blazingstar 

BLM-S UT–Duchesne, Uintah Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the project area.

 

Parthenium 

ligulatum 

Ligulate feverfew BLM-S CO–Rio Blanco; 

UT–Wayne 

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the project area.

 

Penstemon 

scariosus var.

albifluvis 

White River 

beardtongue 

ESA-C CO–Rio Blanco; 

UT–Uintah 

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the project area.

Quad-level occurrences of this species 

intersect the project area in Colorado.

 

Phacelia 

argylensis 

Argyle Canyon 

phacelia 

BLM-S UT–Uintah Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the project area.

 

Townsendia 

strigosa 

Strigose Easterdaisy BLM-S UT–Duchesne, Uintah Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the project area.

 

Yucca sterilis Spanish bayonet BLM-S UT–Uintah Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the project area.

 

Invertebrates 

Speyeria nokomis 

nokomis 

Great Basin 

silverspot butterfly 

BLM-S UT–Duchesne, Uintah Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the project area.

 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-149 

TABLE 6.1.3-2 (Cont.)

Scientific Name Common Name Statusa

States and Counties 

within the Study Area 

in Which Species 

May Occur Potential for Effectb

 

Fish 

Catostomus 

discobolus 

Bluehead sucker BLM-S; 

WY-SC 

CO–Garfield, 

Rio Blanco; 

UT–Carbon, 

Duchesne, Emery, 

Garfield, Grand, 

San Juan, Uintah 

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the project area.

Quad-level occurrences of this species 

intersect the project area in Utah.

 

Catostomus 

latipinnis 

Flannelmouth 

sucker 

BLM-S; 

WY-SC 

CO–Garfield, 

Rio Blanco; 

UT–Carbon, 

Duchesne, Emery, 

Garfield, Grand, 

San Juan, Uintah; 

Wayne 

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the project area.

Quad-level occurrences of this species 

intersect the project area in Utah.

 

Catostomus 

platyrhynchus 

Mountain sucker BLM-S; 

CO-SC 

CO–Garfield, 

Rio Blanca; 

UT–Carbon, 

Duchesne, Emery, 

Grand, Uintah; 

WY–Sweetwater, 

Uinta 

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the project area.

 

Gila copei Leatherside chub BLM UT–Duchesne, 

Emery, Garfield, 

Wayne 

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the project area.

 

Gila robusta Roundtail chub BLM-S; 

CO-SC; 

WY-SC 

CO–Garfield, 

Rio Blanco; 

UT–Carbon, 

Duchesne, Emery, 

Garfield, Grand, 

San Juan, Uintah, 

Wayne 

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the project area.

Quad-level occurrences of this species 

intersect the project area in Utah.

 

Oncorhynchus 

clarkii pleuriticus 

Colorado River 

cutthroat trout 

BLM-S; 

CO-SC; 

WY-SC 

CO–Garfield, 

Rio Blanco; 

UT–Duchesne, 

Garfield, Uintah, 

Wayne 

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the project area. 

Quad-level occurrences are within 7 mi 

from the project area in Colorado. 

 

Amphibians 

Bufo boreas Boreal toad BLM-S; 

CO-E; 

UT-SC; 

WY-SC 

CO–Garfield, 

Rio Blanco; 

UT–Carbon, 

Duchesne, Emery, 

Garfield, Uintah, 

Wayne 

Potential negative impact. 

Approximately 2,192 acres of potentially 

suitable habitat for this species occurs in 

the project area. Nearest occurrences are 

approximately 30 mi from the project 

area in Colorado.

 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-150 

TABLE 6.1.3-2 (Cont.)

Scientific Name Common Name Statusa

States and Counties 

within the Study Area 

in Which Species 

May Occur Potential for Effectb

 

Amphibians 

(Cont.) 

 

Rana pipiens Northern leopard 

frog 

BLM-S; 

CO-SC; 

WY-SC 

CO–Garfield, 

Rio Blanco; 

UT–Carbon, 

Duchesne, Emery, 

Garfield, Grand, 

San Juan, Uintah, 

Wayne 

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 14 acres of potentially 

suitable habitat for this species occurs in 

the project area. Nearest occurrences are 

approximately 30 mi from the project 

area in Colorado.

 

Spea 

intermontana 

Great basin 

spadefoot 

BLM-S; 

WY-SC 

CO–Garfield, 

Rio Blanco; 

UT–Carbon, 

Duchesne, Emery, 

Garfield, Grand, 

San Juan, Uintah, 

Wayne 

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 32,566 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the project area. Quadlevel occurrences are within 6 mi from 

the project area in Colorado. 

 

Reptiles 

Crotalus 

oreganus 

concolor 

Midget faded 

rattlesnake 

BLM-S; 

CO-SC 

CO–Garfield, 

Rio Blanco 

No impact. Suitable habitat for the 

species does not occur in the project area, 

and it is not known to occur in the 

vicinity of the project area. Nearest 

occurrences are approximately 20 mi 

from the project area in Colorado.

 

Gambelia 

wislizenii 

Longnose leopard 

lizard 

BLM-S; 

CO-SC 

CO–Garfield Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat for the species may occur in the 

project area. Quad-level occurrences are 

within 8 mi from the project area in Utah. 

 

Liochlorophis 

vernalis 

Smooth greensnake BLM-S; 

UT-SC 

UT–Carbon, 

Duchesne, Grand, 

San Juan, Uintah 

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat for the species may occur in the 

project area. Quad-level occurrences are 

within 40 mi from the project area in 

Utah. 

 

Birds 

Accipiter gentilis Northern goshawk BLM-S; 

WY-SC 

CO–Garfield, 

Rio Blanco; 

UT–Carbon, 

Duchesne, Emery, 

Garfield, Grand, 

San Juan, Uintah, 

Wayne 

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 5,067 acres of potentially 

suitable habitat for this species occurs in 

the project area. Nearest occurrences are 

approximately 20 mi from the project 

area in Utah.

 

Ammodramus 

savannarum 

Grasshopper 

sparrow 

UT-SC UT–Duchesne, 

Uintah, Utah, 

Wasatch 

No impact. Suitable habitat for the 

species does not occur in the project area.

 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-151 

TABLE 6.1.3-2 (Cont.)

Scientific Name Common Name Statusa

States and Counties 

within the Study Area 

in Which Species 

May Occur Potential for Effectb

 

Birds (Cont.) 

Asio flammeus Short-eared owl BLM-S; 

UT-SC 

UT–Carbon, 

Duchesne, Emery, 

Grand, Garfield, 

San Juan, Uintah, 

Wayne 

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat for the species may occur in the 

project area. Quad-level occurrences of 

this species intersect the project area in 

Utah.

 

Athene 

cunicularia 

Burrowing owl BLM-S; 

CO-T; 

UT-SC; 

WY-SC 

CO–Garfield, 

Rio Blanco; 

UT–Carbon, 

Duchesne, Emery, 

Garfield, Grand, 

San Juan, Uintah, 

Wayne 

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 13,166 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the project area. Quadlevel occurrences are within 8 mi from 

the project area in Utah. 

 

Bucephala 

islandica 

Barrow’s goldeneye BLM-S CO–Garfield, 

Rio Blanco 

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 399 acres of potentially 

suitable habitat for this species occurs in 

the project area. Quad-level occurrences 

are within 40 mi from the project area in 

Colorado. 

 

Buteo regalis Ferruginous hawk BLM-S CO–Garfield, 

Rio Blanco; 

UT–Carbon, 

Duchesne, Emery, 

Garfield, Grand, 

San Juan, Uintah, 

Wayne 

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 12,241 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the project area. Quadlevel occurrences are within 8 mi from 

the project area in Utah. 

 

Coccyzus 

americanus 

occidentalis 

Western yellowbilled cuckoo ESA-C; 

BLM-S; 

WY-SC 

UT–Duchesne, 

Garfield, Grand, 

San Juan, Uintah, 

Wayne 

No impact. Suitable habitat for the 

species does not occur in the project area, 

and it is not known to occur in the 

vicinity of the project area. Nearest 

occurrences are approximately 30 mi 

from the project area in Utah.

 

Cypseloides niger Black swift BLM-S; 

CO-SC; 

UT-SC 

CO–Garfield, 

Rio Blanco; 

UT–Duchesne, Uintah 

No impact. Suitable habitat for the 

species does not occur in the project 

habitat, and it is not known to occur in 

the vicinity of the project area. Nearest 

occurrences are approximately 20 mi 

from the project area in Colorado.

 

Dolichonyx 

oryzivorus 

Bobolink BLM-S; 

UT-SC 

UT–Carbon, 

Duchesne, Emery, 

Garfield, Grand, 

San Juan, Uintah, 

Wayne 

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat for the species may occur in the 

project area. Nearest occurrences are 

approximately 30 mi from the project 

area in Utah.

 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-152 

TABLE 6.1.3-2 (Cont.)

Scientific Name Common Name Statusa

States and Counties 

within the Study Area 

in Which Species 

May Occur Potential for Effectb

 

Birds (Cont.) 

Falco peregrinus 

anatum 

American peregrine 

falcon 

BLM-S; 

CO-SC 

CO–Garfield, 

Rio Blanco 

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 32,936 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the project area. Nearest 

occurrences are approximately 20 mi 

from the project area in Colorado.

 

Grus canadensis 

tabida 

Greater sandhill 

crane 

CO-SC CO–Garfield, 

Rio Blanco 

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 9,707 acres of potentially 

suitable habitat for this species occurs in 

the project area. Nearest occurrences are 

approximately 30 mi from the project 

area in Colorado.

 

Haliaeetus 

leucocephalus 

Bald eagle BLM-S; 

CO-T; 

WY-SC 

CO–Garfield, 

Rio Blanco; 

UT–Carbon, 

Duchesne, Emery, 

Garfield, Grand, 

San Juan, Uintah, 

Wayne 

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 21,905 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the project area. Quadlevel occurrences are within 9 mi from 

the project area in Colorado. 

 

Melanerpes lewis Lewis’s 

woodpecker 

BLM-S; 

UT-SC; 

WY-SC 

UT–Carbon, 

Duchesne, Emery, 

Garfield, Grand, 

San Juan, Uintah, 

Wayne 

No impact. Suitable habitat for the 

species does not occur in the project area 

and it is not known to occur in the 

vicinity of the project area. Nearest 

occurrences are approximately 25 mi 

from the project area in Utah.

 

Numenius 

americanus 

Long-billed curlew BLM-S; 

CO-SC; 

UT-SC; 

WY-SC 

CO–Garfield, 

Rio Blanco; 

UT–Carbon, 

Duchesne, Emery, 

Garfield, Grand, 

San Juan, Uintah, 

Wayne 

No impact. Suitable habitat for the 

species does not occur in the project area, 

and it is not known to occur in the 

vicinity of the project area. Nearest 

occurrences are approximately 20 mi 

from the project area in Utah.

 

Pelecanus 

erythrorhynchos 

American white 

pelican 

BLM-S; 

UT-SC 

CO–Garfield, 

UT–Carbon, 

Duchesne, Emery, 

Garfield, Grand, 

San Juan, Uintah, 

Wayne 

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 427 acres of potentially 

suitable habitat for this species occurs in 

the project area. Nearest occurrences are 

approximately 25 mi from the project 

area in Utah.

 

Picoides 

tridactylus 

Three-toed 

woodpecker 

BLM-S; 

UT-SC 

UT–Carbon, 

Duchesne, Emery, 

Garfield, Grand, 

San Juan, Uintah, 

Wayne 

No impact. Suitable habitat for the 

species does not occur in the project area.

 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-153 

TABLE 6.1.3-2 (Cont.)

Scientific Name Common Name Statusa

States and Counties 

within the Study Area 

in Which Species 

May Occur Potential for Effectb

 

Birds (Cont.) 

Plegadis chihi White-faced ibis BLM-S; 

WY-SC 

CO–Garfield, 

Rio Blanco 

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat for the species may occur in the 

project area. Quad-level occurrences of 

this species intersect the project area in 

Colorado.

 

Tympanuchus 

phasianellus 

columbianus

Columbian sharptailed grouseBLM-S; 

CO-SC

CO–Garfield, 

Rio Blanco

No impact. Suitable habitat for the 

species does not occur in the project area 

and it is not known to occur in the 

vicinity of the project area. Nearest 

occurrences are approximately 20 mi 

from the project area in Colorado.

 

Mammals 

Corynorhinus 

townsendii 

pallescens 

Townsend’s bigeared bat BLM-S; 

CO-SC; 

UT-SC; 

WY-SC 

CO–Garfield, 

Rio Blanco; 

UT–Carbon, 

Duchesne, Emery, 

Garfield, Grand, 

San Juan, Uintah, 

Wayne 

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 32,637 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the project area. Nearest 

occurrences are approximately 20 mi 

from the project area in Utah.

 

Cynomys 

leucurus 

White-tailed prairie 

dog 

BLM-S; 

UT-SC; 

WY-SC 

UT–Carbon, 

Duchesne, Emery, 

Grand, Uintah 

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 11,728 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the project area. Quadlevel occurrences are within 8 mi from 

the project area in Utah. 

 

Euderma 

maculatum 

Spotted bat BLM-S; 

UT-SC; 

WY-SC 

CO–Garfield, 

Rio Blanco; 

UT–Duchesne, 

Garfield, Grand, 

San Juan, Uintah, 

Wayne 

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 32,452 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the project area. Quadlevel occurrences are within 40 mi from 

the project area in Utah. 

 

Gulo gulo Wolverine CO-E; 

WY-SC 

CO–Garfield, 

Rio Blanco 

No impact. Suitable habitat for the 

species does not occur in the project area 

and it is not known to occur in the 

vicinity of the project area. Nearest 

occurrences are approximately 20 mi 

from the project area in Colorado.

 

Myotis 

thysanodes 

Fringed myotis BLM-S; 

UT-SC; 

WY-SC 

CO–Garfield, 

Rio Blanco; 

UT–Duchesne, 

Garfield, Grand, 

San Juan, Uintah, 

Wayne 

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 33,050 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the project area. Quadlevel occurrences of this species intersect 

the project area in Utah. 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-154 

TABLE 6.1.3-2 (Cont.)

Scientific Name Common Name Statusa

States and Counties 

within the Study Area 

in Which Species 

May Occur Potential for Effectb

 

Mammals (Cont.) 

Nyctinomops 

macrotis 

Big free-tailed bat BLM-S; 

UT-SC 

CO–Garfield; 

UT–Carbon, 

Duchesne, Emery, 

Garfield, Grand, 

San Juan, Uintah, 

Wayne 

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 33,021 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the project area. Nearest 

occurrences are approximately 20 mi 

from the project area in Utah.

 

Vulpes macrotis Kit fox BLM-S; 

CO-E; 

UT-SC 

CO–Garfield, 

Rio Blanco; 

UT–Carbon, 

Duchesne, Emery, 

Garfield, Grand, 

San Juan, Uintah, 

Wayne 

No impact. Suitable habitat for the 

species does not occur in the project area, 

and it is not known to occur in the 

vicinity of the project area. Nearest 

occurrences are approximately 25 mi 

from the project areas in Colorado and 

Utah.

a Status categories: BLM-S = listed by the BLM as sensitive; CO-E = listed as endangered by the State of Colorado; 

CO-SC = species of special concern in the state of Colorado; CO-T = listed as threatened by the State of Colorado; 

ESA-C = candidate for listing under the ESA; UT-SC = species of special concern in the state of Utah; WY-SC = species 

of special concern in the state of Wyoming. 

b Potential impacts are based upon the presence of potentially suitable habitat or recorded occurrences in the vicinity of the 

Alternative 3 footprint (i.e., study area). Recorded occurrences were obtained as USGS quad-level or township range-level 

element occurrence records from state natural heritage program offices (CNHP 2011; UDWR 2011). If available for 

terrestrial vertebrates, SWReGAP animal habitat suitability models (USGS 2007) were used to determine the presence of 

potentially suitable habitat in the Alternative 3 footprint (i.e., study area).

potentially suitable habitat.10 Under this alternative, there are no critical habitats for species 

listed under the ESA in the RD&D areas or any of the PRLAs. However, critical habitat for 

Colorado River endangered fishes occurs within 5 mi from potential lease areas (Figure 6.1.3-4). 

Areas including greater sage-grouse habitat are shown in Figure 6.1.3-5. Although the current oil 

shale RD&D lease areas are excluded from greater sage-grouse core and priority habitats11, a 

portion of the Enefit PRLA in Utah occurs within greater sage-grouse priority habitat 

(approximately 2,338 acres). Oil shale RD&D leases and PRLAs in Colorado do not intersect 

greater sage-grouse core and priority habitats (Figure 6.1.3-5). 

 

10 Spatial models representing potentially suitable habitat of terrestrial vertebrate wildlife species were obtained 

from USGS (2007) and WYNDD (2011b). For species with an available habitat model, a spatial analysis was 

performed to quantify the amount of potentially suitable habitat within the potential lease areas. This 

quantification is presented in Tables 6.1.3-2 and 6.1.3-3. 

11 Data and habitats considered as core or priority greater sage-grouse habitat for this PEIS are discussed in a text 

box in Section 3.7.4.3.1. 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-155 

TABLE 6.1.3-3 Potential Effects of Commercial Oil Shale Development under Alternative 3 on 

Federally Listed Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Species 

Scientific Name Common Name Statusa

States and Counties 

within the Study Area 

in Which Species May 

Occur Potential for Effectb

 

Plants 

Lesquerella 

congesta 

Dudley Bluffs 

bladderpod 

ESA-T CO–Rio Blanco Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the project area.

Quad-level occurrences of this species 

intersect the project area in Colorado.

 

Penstemon 

grahamii 

Graham’s 

beardtongue 

ESA-PT; 

BLM-S 

CO–Rio Blanco; 

UT–Duchesne, Uintah 

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the project area.

Quad-level occurrences of this species 

intersect the project area in Utah.

 

Physaria 

obcordata 

Dudley Bluffs 

twinpod 

ESA-T CO–Rio Blanco Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the project area.

Quad-level occurrences of this species 

intersect the project area in Utah.

 

Schoenocram

be argillacea 

Clay reed-mustard ESA-T UT–Uintah No impact. Suitable habitat for this 

species is not known to occur in the 

vicinity of any project areas. Nearest 

occurrences are approximately 20 mi from 

the project area in Utah.

 

Schoenocram

be 

suffrutescens 

Shrubby reedmustard ESA-E UT–Duchesne, Uintah No impact. Suitable habitat for this 

species is not known to occur in the 

vicinity of any project areas. Nearest 

occurrences are approximately 20 mi from 

the project area in Utah.

 

Sclerocactus 

brevispinus 

Pariette cactus ESA-T UT–Duchesne, Uintah No impact. Suitable habitat for this 

species is not known to occur in the 

vicinity of any project areas. Nearest 

occurrences are approximately 30 mi from 

the project area in Utah.

 

Sclerocactus 

glaucus 

Colorado hookless 

cactus 

ESA-T CO–Garfield No impact. Suitable habitat for this 

species is not known to occur in the 

vicinity of any project areas. Nearest 

occurrences are approximately 25 mi from 

the project area in Colorado.

 

Sclerocactus 

wetlandicus 

Uinta Basin 

hookless cactus 

ESA-T UT–Carbon, 

Duchesne, Uintah 

No impact. Suitable habitat for this 

species is not known to occur in the 

vicinity of any project areas. Nearest 

occurrences are approximately 11 mi from 

the project area in Utah.

 

Spiranthes 

diluvialis 

Ute ladies’-tresses ESA-T UT–Duchesne, 

Garfield, Uintah, 

Wayne 

No impact. Suitable habitat for this 

species is not known to occur in the 

vicinity of any project areas. Nearest 

occurrences are approximately 30 mi from 

the project area in Utah. 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-156 

TABLE 6.1.3-3 (Cont.)

Scientific Name Common Name Statusa

States and Counties 

within the Study Area 

in Which Species May 

Occur Potential for Effectb

 

Fish 

Gila cypha Humpback chub ESA-E; 

CO-T 

UT–Carbon, Emery, 

Garfield, Grand, 

San Juan, Uintah, 

Wayne 

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat for this species may in the vicinity 

of the project areas. Designated critical 

habitat does not occur near any of the 

project areas.

 

Gila elegans Bonytail ESA-E UT–Carbon, 

Duchesne, Emery, 

Garfield, Grand, 

San Juan, Uintah, 

Wayne 

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat for this species may in the vicinity 

of the project areas. Designated critical 

habitat does not occur near any of the 

project areas. Nearest occurrences are 

approximately 25 mi from the project area 

in Utah.

 

Ptychocheilus 

lucius 

Colorado 

pikeminnow 

ESA-E; 

CO-T 

CO–Rio Blanco; 

UT–Carbon, 

Duchesne, Emery, 

Garfield, Grand, 

San Juan, Uintah, 

Wayne 

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the vicinity of the 

project areas. Designated critical habitat 

may occur within 1 mi downstream from 

project areas in Utah. Quad-level 

occurrences are within 8 mi from project 

areas in Utah. 

 

Xyrauchen 

texanus 

Razorback sucker ESA-E; 

CO-E 

CO–Garfield, 

Rio Blanco; 

UT–Carbon, Emery 

Garfield, Grand, 

San Juan, Uintah, 

Wayne 

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the vicinity of the 

project areas. Designated critical habitat 

may occur within 1 mi downstream from 

project areas in Utah. Quad-level 

occurrences are within 6 mi from the 

project area in Utah. 

 

Birds 

Empidonax 

traillii 

extimus 

Southwestern 

willow flycatcher 

ESA-E UT–Carbon, Emery, 

Garfield, Grand, 

San Juan, Uintah, 

Wayne 

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 399 acres of potentially 

suitable habitat for this species occurs in 

the project area.

 

Grus 

americana 

Whooping crane ESA-XN; 

CO-E 

CO–Garfield, 

Rio Blanco 

No impact. Suitable habitat for the species 

does not occur in the project area.

 

Strix 

occidentalis 

lucida 

Mexican spotted 

owl 

ESA-T UT–Emery, Garfield, 

Grand, San Juan, 

Uintah, Wayne 

No impact. Suitable habitat for the species 

does not occur in the project area. 

Designated critical habitat does not occur 

near any of the project areas. 

 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-157 

TABLE 6.1.3-3 (Cont.)

Scientific Name Common Name Statusa

States and Counties 

within the Study Area 

in Which Species May 

Occur Potential for Effectb

 

Mammals 

Lynx 

canadensis 

Canada lynx ESA-T; 

CO-E; 

WY-SC 

CO–Garfield, 

Rio Blanco; 

UT–Emery, Uintah 

No impact. Suitable habitat for the species 

does not occur in the project area, and it is 

not known to occur in the vicinity of the 

project area. Nearest occurrences are 

approximately 30 mi from the project area 

in Colorado.

 

Mustela 

nigripes 

Black-footed ferret ESA-XN; 

CO-E 

CO–Rio Blanco; 

UT–Carbon, 

Duchesne, Emery, 

Grand, San Juan, 

Uintah 

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 826 acres of potentially 

suitable habitat for this species occurs in 

the project area. Quad-level occurrences 

are within 8 mi from the project area in 

Utah. 

a Status categories: BLM-S = listed by the BLM as sensitive; CO-E = listed as endangered by the State of Colorado; 

CO-T = listed as threatened by the State of Colorado; ESA-E = listed as endangered under the ESA; ESA-PT = proposed 

for listing as a threatened species under the ESA; ESA-T = listed as threatened under the ESA; ESA-XN = experimental, 

nonessential population; WY-SC = species of special concern in the state of Wyoming.

b Potential impacts are based upon the presence of potentially suitable habitat or recorded occurrences in the vicinity of the 

Alternative 3 footprint (i.e., study area). Recorded occurrences were obtained as USGS quad-level or township rangelevel element occurrence records from state natural heritage program offices (CNHP 2011; UDWR 2011; 

WYNDD 2011a). If available for terrestrial vertebrates, SWReGAP animal habitat suitability models (USGS 2007) and 

terrestrial vertebrate distribution models for the state of Wyoming (WYNDD 2011b) were used to determine the presence 

of potentially suitable habitat in the Alternative 3 footprint (i.e., study area). Spatial data for designated critical habitat

were obtained from the USFWS Critical Habitat Portal (USFWS 2011).

 The potential impacts on threatened, endangered, and sensitive species (and their 

habitats) by commercial oil shale development are directly related to the amount of land 

disturbance that could occur with a commercial project (including ancillary facilities such as 

power plants and utility and pipeline ROWs), the duration and timing of construction and 

operation periods, and the habitats affected by development (i.e., the location of the project). 

Indirect effects, such as impacts resulting from the erosion of disturbed land surfaces, surface 

water or groundwater depletions, contamination, and disturbance and harassment of animal 

species, would be proportional to the amount of land disturbance. 

 Potential impacts on threatened and endangered species under Alternative 3 are similar to 

or the same as impacts on aquatic resources; plant communities and habitats; and wildlife 

described in Sections 6.1.3.7.1, 6.1.3.7.2, and 6.1.3.7.3, respectively. The most important 

difference is the potential consequence of the impacts. Because of their low population sizes, 

threatened and endangered species are far more vulnerable than more common and widespread 

species. Low population size makes them more vulnerable to the effects of habitat fragmentation, 

habitat alteration, habitat degradation, human disturbance and harassment, mortality of 

individuals, and the loss of genetic diversity. Specific impacts associated with development 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-158 

FIGURE 6.1.3-4 Designated Critical Habitat of Threatened and Endangered Species That Are 

near Oil Shale RD&D Areas 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-159 

FIGURE 6.1.3-5 Distribution of Core and Priority Habitat Areas for Greater Sage-Grouse That 

Are near Oil Shale RD&D Areas 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-160 

would depend on the locations of projects relative to species populations and the details of 

project development. These impacts would be evaluated in detail in project-specific assessments 

and consultations conducted prior to leasing (including, but not limited to, conversion from 

RD&D to commercial lease) and development. 

6.1.3.8 Visual Resources 

 Under Alternative 3, visual impacts are associated with the following: 

• The construction, operation, and reclamation of the RD&D projects, and the 

construction, operation, and reclamation of oil shale facilities that might be 

developed on the PRLAs for the RD&D projects if RD&D operators are 

granted use of the PRLAs for commercial development; and 

• The construction, operation, and reclamation of oil shale facilities that might 

be developed in the oil shale priority management areas (Utah) and the lands 

available for oil shale leasing in Colorado. 

 6.1.3.8.1 Impacts Associated with the Existing RD&D Lease Areas. Under this 

alternative, the effects of the eight existing and one proposed RD&D projects on 160-acre lease 

are analyzed (see Table 2.3-2 and Figure 2.3-2). Direct visual impacts associated with 

construction and operation of the RD&D projects and subsequent reclamation can be divided 

into short-term impacts associated with activities that occur during the construction and 

reclamation phases of the projects, and longer term impacts that result from construction and 

operation of the facilities themselves. Major construction activities that will have a visual impact 

include vegetation clearing; recontouring of landforms; road building and/or upgrading; pad, 

building, and tank construction; and utility ROW construction. Other construction activities will 

include digging of drilling reserve pits and possibly retention ponds, construction of berms 

around some tanks, and the addition of fencing around some or all of the lease sites. These 

various construction activities will require work crews, vehicles, and equipment that will add to 

visual impacts during construction. Traffic movement, associated fugitive dust emissions, and 

temporary parking resulting from workers’ vehicles and large equipment (trucks, graders, 

excavators, and cranes) will also result in visual impacts. Construction equipment might produce 

emissions and visible exhaust plumes. In addition, piles of building materials, as well as brush 

piles and soil piles, will be visible at times. 

 Visual impacts from the operation of the various RD&D projects will be associated with 

vegetation clearing; the presence of the project facilities and associated infrastructure; and the 

presence and activities of workers, vehicles, and equipment. These impacts will occur to some 

degree throughout the operational life of the projects, and some impacts might occur beyond the 

operational life of the projects. Project components and activities that will likely be associated 

with each of the RD&D projects and that could result in visual impacts include the following: 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-161 

• Vegetation clearing (ranging from 35 to 160 acres cleared, depending on the 

project) with associated debris; 

• Recontouring of landforms; 

• New or upgraded roads; 

• Pads for structures and or equipment (e.g., well pads); 

• Buildings (generally of sheet metal construction), such as offices and 

laboratories; 

• Groundwater monitoring wells; 

• Flare stacks; 

• Utilities, such as electric transmission lines, pipelines, and communication 

data lines (with associated rows and structures) within and/or outside the 

160-acre lease boundaries depending on the project, and with ROWs 

25 to 65 ft in width and up to 1 mi long, depending on the project; 

• Communication towers; 

• Storage tanks for water, syncrude, fuel, and other liquids associated with oil 

shale processing; 

• Retention ponds and runoff-control structures; 

• Earthen berms around some storage tanks; 

• Mounds of stored soil; 

• Fencing around all or part of the lease site; 

• Vehicular, equipment, and worker presence and activity, and associated 

vegetation and ground disturbances; 

• Dust and emissions; and 

• Light pollution, resulting from facilities operating at night or from security 

lighting. 

 The in situ technology projects also are expected to have extensive numbers of 

production and injection wells and drilling reserve pits, which could result in visual impacts. 

Similarly, the Enefit RD&D project involving underground mining with surface retort processes 

will have additional visual impacts associated with the surface retorts, ore-crushing facilities, 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-162 

spent-shale handling facilities, processing buildings and associated structures, and piles of raw 

and spent shale. 

 Construction activities and the presence of the visible site components described above 

will introduce contrasts in form, line, color, texture, and a relatively high degree of human 

activity into what are generally natural-appearing landscapes (although the Enefit site currently 

has significant existing visual intrusions from previous development activity). In general, visual 

impacts associated directly with construction activities will be temporary, but because of the 

phased nature of the RD&D projects, construction activities will occur several times during the 

course of the project, giving rise to brief periods of intense construction activity (and associated 

visual impacts) followed by periods of inactivity. Much of the contrast will be associated with 

vegetation removal and the presence of buildings and other structures with strong geometric 

lines, spatial symmetry, and flat, monochromatic surfaces. These man-made industrial facilities 

will draw visual attention because of their size, color, and shape. Removal of vegetation and 

recontouring during construction will introduce unnatural-appearing linear features into the 

landscape and might create contrasting soil and vegetation colors and patterns. Soil scars, 

exposed slope faces, eroded areas, and areas of compacted soil could result from recontouring 

and equipment and vehicle movement, and could introduce noticeable color contrasts, depending 

on soil type. Invasive species might colonize disturbed and stockpiled soils and compacted areas. 

These species might be introduced naturally, in seeds, plants, or soils introduced for intermediate 

restoration, or by vehicles. The presence of workers and construction activities could also result 

in litter and debris that could create negative visual impacts within and around work sites. 

 The seven in situ technology projects are generally similar in nature and extent of the 

visual impacts that are expected, although the three Shell projects will involve more vegetation 

clearing than the other in situ projects, prior to exercising of the preferential leases. The Chevron 

site will be the most prominent in its proposed location on Hunter Ridge adjacent to County 

Road 69. Because of the presence of a mine and associated buildings and structures, one or more 

retorts, and raw and spent shale piles, the Enefit project will have somewhat different impacts 

than the in situ technology projects; it will have more and potentially larger structures and 

eventually a large spent shale pile, covering 38 acres. 

 As portions of the RD&D project sites are reclaimed, visual impacts will be similar to 

those encountered during construction, but likely of shorter duration. Reclamation likely will be 

an intermittent or phased activity persisting over extended periods of time and will include the 

presence of workers, vehicles, and temporary fencing at the work site. Restoring an area to 

preproject conditions could also entail recontouring, grading, scarifying, seeding and planting, 

and perhaps stabilizing disturbed surfaces, but might not be possible in all cases (i.e., the 

contours of restored areas might not always be identical to preproject conditions). Newly 

disturbed soils might create visual contrasts that could persist for several seasons before 

revegetation will begin to disguise past activity. Invasive species might colonize reclaimed areas, 

likely producing contrasts of color and texture. 

 Should the existing RD&D developments prove successful, if the terms of the existing 

leases are met, commercial development could proceed on adjacent PRLA acreages totaling 

25,760 acres in the Piceance Basin and on 4,960 acres adjacent to the Enefit site in Utah. The 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-163 

general nature of visual impacts associated with commercial development in the PRLAs would 

be similar to impacts noted above for the RD&D projects. However, the scale of the impacts 

would be larger, because the disturbed land area would be larger; buildings and other structures 

more numerous and, in some cases, considerably larger; spent soil and/or shale piles (for miningbased projects) much larger; and more employees and vehicles present. Greater volumes of 

smoke, dust, and other impacts associated with oil shale processing would be visible, and in 

general, the level of activity visible would be greater. The impacts associated with the project 

would also be experienced for a longer duration, because of the relatively long period of 

operation of the facility and longer times required for construction and decommissioning of the 

developments. 

 6.1.3.8.2 Impacts Associated with Potential Future Commercial Oil Shale 

Development. Common visual impacts associated with commercial oil shale development are 

described in detail in Section 4.9.1. Acreages and applicable technologies for potential 

commercial oil shale development under Alternative 3 are described in Chapter 2. Impacts 

associated with commercial oil shale development in the oil shale priority management areas in 

Utah could include those associated with underground mining and/or in situ methods, which are 

described in Sections 4.9.1.2 and 4.9.1.3, respectively. Impacts associated with commercial oil 

shale development in the lands available for oil shale leasing under the White River RMP in 

Colorado could include those associated with underground mining and/or in situ methods, which 

are described in Sections 4.9.1.2 and 4.9.1.3, respectively. 

 The RD&D leases and the lands made available for application for leasing under 

Alternative 3 support a variety of visual resources (Section 3.8). These resources are not affected 

by the identification of these lands as available for application for commercial leasing. However, 

visual resources in and around these potential lease areas could be affected by subsequent 

commercial development of oil shale. 

 Scenic resource areas are located within 5 or 15 mi of the RD&D leases and areas that are 

available for application for commercial leasing under Alternative 3 in both Utah and Colorado 

(Figures 6.1.3-6 and 6.1.3-7, respectively). These 5- and 15-mi zones correspond to the BLM’s 

VRM foreground-middleground and background distance limits, respectively. Based on the 

assumption of an unobstructed view of a commercial oil shale project, viewers in these areas 

would be likely to perceive some level of visual impact from a commercial oil shale project; 

impacts would be expected to be greater for resources within the foreground-middleground 

distance and lesser for those areas within the background distance. Beyond the background 

distance, the project might be visible but would likely occupy a very small visual angle and 

create low levels of visual contrast such that impacts would be expected to be minor to 

negligible. Table 6.1.3-4 presents the scenic resource areas that fall within these zones under 

Alternative 3. 

 Visual resources could be affected at and near Alternative 3 lease areas where RD&D 

or commercial oil shale projects are developed and operated, and at areas where supporting 

infrastructure (e.g., plants and utility and pipeline ROWs) could be located. Visual resources 

could be affected by ROW clearing and by project construction and operation 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-164 

FIGURE 6.1.3-6 Scenic Resource Areas within the 5- and 15-mi Zones around the Lands 

Available for Application for Leasing under Alternative 3 in Utah 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-165 

FIGURE 6.1.3-7 Scenic Resource Areas within the 5- and 15-mi Zones around the Lands 

Available for Application for Leasing under Alternative 3 in Colorado 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-166 

TABLE 6.1.3-4 Visually Sensitive Areas That Could Be Affected by Oil Shale Projects Developed 

in the Alternative 3 Lease Areas 

State 

Scenic Resources within 5 mi 

of Alternative 3 Lease Areas 

Scenic Resources between 5 and 15 mi 

of Alternative 3 Lease Areas 

 

Utah NAa Oil Spring Mountain, Raven Ridge Addition, and 

White River Riparian ACECs; Fantasy Canyon, 

and White River SRMAs; and Oil Spring 

Mountain WSA. 

 

Colorado Duck Creek, Dudley Bluffs, and Ryan Gulch 

ACECs 

Coal Draw, East Douglas Creek, East Douglas 

Creek/South Cathedral Bluffs Addition, Lower 

Greasewood Creek, South Cathedral Bluffs 

Addition, South Cathedral Bluffs/South Cathedral 

Bluffs Addition, Upper Greasewood Creek, 

White River Riparian, and Yanks Gulch ACECs; 

Dinosaur Diamond Prehistoric Scenic Highway; 

and Black Mountain WSA. 

a NA = not applicable. 

(see Section 4.9.1). Potential impacts would be associated with construction equipment and 

activity, cleared project areas, and the type and visibility of individual project components such 

as shale-processing facilities, utility ROWs, and surface mines. The nature, magnitude, and 

extent of project-related impacts would depend on the type, location, and design of the individual 

project components. 

6.1.3.9 Cultural Resources 

 Under Alternative 3, a total of 32,000 acres of land in Colorado and in Utah have already 

been allocated for RD&D projects and surrounding PRLA lands; an additional 640 acres of land 

is included in one remaining RD&D proposal. Individual RD&D lessees may also apply to 

convert their 160-acre leases (plus 4,960 adjacent acres, or 480 acres for the two 2012 leases) to 

a 20-year commercial-scale lease once specific requirements are met. Therefore, under 

Alternative 3, commercial-scale oil shale development could occur. Should such development 

occur, projects will be subject to full compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA and other 

pertinent laws, regulations, and policies. 

 The lands that would remain available under Alternative 3 overlap with lands that have 

been specifically identified as having cultural resources. Of the public lands that are available 

under Alternative 3, approximately 51% in the Piceance Basin and 93% of the lands in Utah 

have been surveyed for cultural resources. A total of 14 sites have been identified in these 

surveyed areas. Additional cultural resources are likely to exist in the unsurveyed portions of the 

proposed lease areas. On the basis of a sensitivity analysis conducted for the Class I Cultural 

Resources Overview (O’Rourke et al. 2012), about 26,752 acres (99%) in the Piceance Basin and 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-167 

about 2,614 acres (45%) in the Uinta Basin within the Alternative 3 footprints have been 

identified as having a medium or high sensitivity for containing cultural resources. 

 Impacts on cultural resources within these areas would be considered if leasing and future 

commercial development occur. Leasing itself has the potential to have an impact on cultural 

resources to the extent that the terms of the lease limit an agency’s ability to avoid, minimize, 

or mitigate adverse effects of proposed development on cultural properties. However, 

compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA, as well as all other pertinent laws, regulations, and 

policies, will likely result in the addition of stipulations to leases to avoid, minimize, or mitigate 

adverse impacts on historic properties present within a lease area or, when warranted, denial of 

the lease. Impacts from development could include the destruction of individual resources 

present within development footprints, degradation and/or destruction of near-surface resources 

in or near the development area, increased potential of loss of resource from looting or vandalism 

to resources as a result of increased human presence/activity in the sensitive areas, and visual 

degradation of cultural setting (see Section 4.10). Any future leasing or development would be 

subject to compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA as well as all other pertinent laws, 

regulations, and policies. Compliance with these laws would result in measures to avoid, 

minimize, or mitigate impacts or denial of the lease or project. Development can also lead to 

scientifically beneficial discoveries that may not have otherwise been made. 

 Unlike the other alternatives considered in the PEIS, active leasing and environmental 

compliance activities, including Section 106 consultation, have been occurring for the existing 

RD&D areas. This allows for a more detailed understanding of the environmental conditions 

under this alternative than is possible for the other alternatives. The following is a summary of 

the material that has been collected for the existing RD&D areas. (See the introduction to 

Section 6.1.3 for further clarification of the scope of Alternative 3.) 

 Adverse impacts on significant cultural resources in association with the RD&D activities 

are possible, particularly at the Shell Site 3 and the Enefit site because surveys for these locations 

have identified resources. Avoidance of the resources and/or additional testing and possible data 

recovery would be needed to mitigate any impacts that resulted from an action. 

 The 160-acre Chevron lease tract and associated utility line route were surveyed for 

cultural resources in March and April 2006. No cultural resources were identified, and the 

potential for subsurface remains is considered low in this area on the basis of results of previous 

surveys in the area and the north-sloping terrain (Connor 2006a,b). A recent wellpad survey 

(Baer et al. 2010) overlapped into the lease tract, where it encountered an isolated find. That find 

was not considered historically significant. The proposed development of oil shale resources for 

RD&D activities on the Chevron lease tract will therefore not impact any known significant 

cultural resources. 

 The 160-acre AMSO lease tract and associated utility line route were surveyed for 

cultural resources in April and May 2006, respectively (Hoefer and Greenberg 2006a,b). Two 

previously reported prehistoric sites were relocated, and two prehistoric isolated finds were 

encountered during the survey of the 160-acre lease tract. An isolated find is either a single 

artifact (that could be broken in several pieces, like a ceramic cup) or a small collection, typically 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-168 

fewer than five items, of the same type of artifact, such as four small pieces of chipped stone 

flakes. Two additional isolated finds dating to the historic period were encountered during the 

utility ROW survey. Of the six cultural resource locations identified during the surveys, none 

meet the eligibility criteria for listing on the NRHP; five of the sites have a field recommendation 

of “not eligible,” and one of the previously recorded sites has an official determination of not 

eligible. The proposed development of oil shale resources for RD&D activities on the AMSO 

lease tract will therefore not impact any known significant cultural resources. 

 The three 160-acre lease tracts that Shell proposes to develop under the RD&D program 

have all undergone cultural resource surveys. Shell Site 1, the Oil Shale Test Site, was surveyed 

previously as part of two different surveys in 2004 and 2005. The total acreage previously 

surveyed was 1,368 acres, and 7 prehistoric sites, 1 historic site, and 10 isolated finds were 

recorded (Connor et al. 2004, 2005). One of the isolated finds—considered not significant—was 

encountered in the 160-acre lease tract of Site 1. Shell Site 2, the Nahcolite Test Site, was 

surveyed in 2006. One paleontological site was encountered, but no cultural resources were 

recorded (Darnell 2006). The proposed development of oil shale resources for RD&D activities 

on the Shell Sites 1 and 2 lease tracts will therefore not impact any known significant cultural 

resources. 

 Shell Site 3, the Advanced Heater Test Site, was surveyed previously in 2001. The total 

acreage previously surveyed was 3,507 acres, and 9 prehistoric sites, 7 historic sites, and 

23 prehistoric isolated finds were encountered (Connor and Davenport 2001). One site, 

5RB4296, a prehistoric open camp, is located within the Site 3 lease tract. There are insufficient 

data regarding the eligibility of the site; therefore, the site must be treated as eligible until further 

testing of the site can be completed. Adverse impacts on this site will occur without the 

application of mitigation actions. The Shell EA states that this site will be avoided, including any 

necessary erosion control measures, and that conditions of approval will be added to the lease to 

ensure that the site will be safeguarded until eligibility of the site is determined. 

 The 160-acre Enefit lease tract has undergone previous land disturbance because it was 

previously mined for oil shale. The Enefit EA indicates that 28 separate cultural resource 

investigations have been conducted in the vicinity of the lease tract. The initial archaeological 

survey of the area was conducted in 1975 for oil shale lease areas Ua and Ub. The total acreage 

previously surveyed was 27,200 acres (Berry and Berry 1975). No additional survey of the lease 

tract was conducted for the RD&D activities specifically, but survey for an access road corridor 

through the area was conducted in 2008. No sites are recorded in the Enefit lease tract, but it is 

unclear whether the 1975 survey work adequately covered the entire area. Additional survey will 

probably be needed. 

 The two newly approved RD&D locations have yet to undergo cultural resources surveys 

specific to oil shale RD&D in compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA. No surveys have been 

conducted in the Utah location. However, other cultural resource surveys have overlapped into 

these areas in Colorado. Unrelated surveys in the ExxonMobil and Natural Soda tracts have 

recorded two prehistoric isolated finds, one prehistoric site, and an historic trash dump. The 

significance of the site has not been evaluated, but the isolated finds and the dump have been 

determined not significant. 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-169 

 Each of the EAs recognizes that responsibility for protecting cultural resources does not 

end with the cultural resources surveys identified above. In the event that unanticipated cultural 

resources are discovered during development activities, the potential impact on these resources 

will need to be mitigated by stopping work and contacting the BLM authorized officer 

immediately for further instruction prior to proceeding. If human remains are encountered during 

project operations, the BLM authorized officer must be notified by telephone with written 

confirmation immediately upon the discovery. All activities must stop in the vicinity of the 

discovery, and the discovery must be protected for 30 days or until the operator is notified to 

proceed by the BLM authorized officer. Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.4, this process must be followed 

upon the discovery of Native American human remains, funerary items, sacred objects, or 

objects of cultural patrimony. All employees of the operator and any subcontractors must be 

informed by the operator before commencement of operations that any disturbance to, 

defacement of, or removal of archaeological, historical, or sacred material will not be permitted. 

Violation of the laws that protect these resources will be treated as law enforcement/ 

administrative issues. The operator will be held accountable for the conduct of employees and 

subcontractors in this regard. 

6.1.3.10 Indian Tribal Concerns 

 Under Alternative 3, the eight current RD&D oil shale leases of PRLA lands in Colorado 

and Utah, totaling 32,000 acres, and one potential new RD&D lease in Utah totaling 640 acres, 

would be available for oil shale leasing (Section 2.3.3.2). These are the only lands available for 

oil shale lease applications under this alternative. Under this alternative, surface mining would 

not be permitted. Development of the lease tracts could impact resources important to Indian 

tribes. Adverse effects could include destruction or damage resulting from the construction and 

operation of lease facilities including excavation and vibration from drilling; increased access by 

OHVs resulting from the construction of additional ROWs; damage or vandalism resulting from 

the presence and activities of facility personnel; and visual and auditory intrusions on sacred 

sites. Conducting required surveys and consultation in association with site-specific development 

could have a positive effect as sites and resources are identified and are taken into account in 

development and operation plans. Under this alternative much less land would be available for 

oil shale lease applications. Of the four oil shale alternatives, Alternative 3 has the least potential 

for adverse impact on resources of tribal concern. 

 As discussed in Section 6.1.3.9, cultural resources surveys have been conducted in 

association with oil shale lease applications. NEPA documentation included consideration of 

Native American concerns (BLM 2006c,d,e). Although cultural resource surveys associated with 

compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA for this project in the area have identified the kind of 

sites often considered important by Native Americans (e.g., rock art, rock shelters, and stone 

circles), no such sites have been identified by Indian tribes. If development beyond the initial 

160-acre parcels proceeds, previously unidentified sites or resources are likely to be identified. 

Developers currently have procedures in place to protect known resources as well as previously 

unidentified resources that might be encountered. These include procedures to follow at the 

discovery of human remains or items of tribal patrimony, protection of known sites from damage 

and erosion, and education of facility personnel regarding their responsibilities and legal 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-170 

requirements to protect resources important to Native Americans and allow reasonable access to 

sites of current cultural or religious significance. 

6.1.3.11 Socioeconomics 

 Construction of eight in situ processing facilities (seven approved and one pending in situ 

RD&D projects) would create 1,720 jobs (1,080 direct and 640 indirect), and $97 million in 

personal income, and operation would create 1,115 jobs (713 direct and 401 indirect) and 

$63 million in income. Underground mining would create 378 jobs and $23 million in personal 

income, and operation would create 368 jobs and $22 million in income. Construction 

employment for each facility would represent an increase of less than 1.5% over the projected 

employment baseline in the two ROIs in the peak construction year. 

 In addition to oil shale production facilities, employer-provided temporary housing and 

housing constructed in local communities would produce employment and income in each ROI. 

Temporary housing built for workers at the seven in situ projects would create 393 jobs 

(305 direct and 88 indirect) and $10 million in income in the Colorado ROI (Table 6.1.1-13). 

Construction of housing for the two underground mine projects would produce employment of 

42 (34 direct and 8 indirect jobs) and $0.8 million in income in the Utah ROI. 

 Population increases associated with the construction of the in situ RD&D projects under 

Alternative 3, not including any subsequent commercial development, would represent a 0.7% 

increase over the ROI baseline population for the peak construction year of 2012 (see 

Section 3.11.2). In Utah, increases in population during the peak construction year of the 

underground mine projects in 2012 would lead to an increase of 0.5% in population in the ROI 

(see Section 3.11.2). Given the relatively small direct labor force requirements for each project, 

population in-migration in Colorado and Utah is likely to be small, with minor impacts on local 

social disruption in each ROI expected. 

 Given the relatively small scale of the RD&D projects under Alternative 3, any property 

value impacts in the vicinity of federal land are likely to be local and temporary. In the ROIs in 

Colorado and Utah, in general, few workers are expected to in-migrate. Individual projects are 

not expected to produce large increases in local employment and economic activity, meaning that 

property value impacts will be small. 

 Under Alternative 3, a total of 32,000 acres of land in Colorado and in Utah have already 

been allocated for RD&D projects and surrounding PRLA lands. An additional 640 acres of land 

are included in one new RD&D proposal in Utah. Impacts could result from post-lease 

construction and operation of commercial oil shale projects as described in Sections 4.12 and 

5.12. These impacts would be considered in project-specific NEPA analyses that would be 

conducted at the lease (including, but not limited to, conversion from RD&D to commercial 

lease) and development phases of projects. 

 Impacts on transportation systems and infrastructure could result from post-lease 

construction and operation as described in Section 4.12. Impacts of subsequent leasing and 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-171 

development actions would be considered in project-specific NEPA analyses that would be 

conducted at the lease (including, but not limited to, conversion from RD&D to commercial 

lease) and development phases of projects. 

6.1.3.12 Environmental Justice 

 Environmental and human health impacts on the general population from the RD&D 

projects under the No Action Alternative are expected to be low. No significant, adverse air 

quality impacts are likely to occur during construction and operation of the RD&D projects. 

Land use impacts associated with the RD&D projects, not including any subsequent commercial 

development, are likely to be relatively small given the small amount of land disturbed and the 

relative remoteness of locations in each state. Noise effects during energy project operation will 

also likely be minimal. In general, visual impacts associated with construction activities under 

Alternative 3 will be small and temporary, although some construction activities will occur 

several times during the course of the project, which will give rise to brief periods of intense 

construction activity and the associated visual impacts. Providing that mitigation measures are 

implemented as described in the EAs and FONSIs, water quality impacts of the RD&D projects 

are expected to be temporary and local, while water use during oil shale facility operations under 

Alternative 3 is expected to be low and within the capacity of regional water suppliers. 

 Construction and operation of the RD&D projects will have minor disproportionate 

impacts on minority and low-income populations, primarily associated with changes in quality of 

life and social disruption caused by rapid in-migration of population into some rural 

communities, changes in air and water quality, and the impact of water diversions on agriculture. 

There may be property value and visual impacts depending on the locations of land parcels 

impacted by oil shale projects, their importance for subsistence, their cultural and religious 

significance, and possible alternate economic uses. 

 Under Alternative 3, a total of 32,000 acres of land in Colorado and in Utah have already 

been allocated for RD&D projects and surrounding PRLA lands; an additional 640 acres of land 

is included in one RD&D proposal. Data in Tables 6.1.3-5 show the minority and low-income 

composition of total population located in the designated oil shale development areas and 

associated 50-mi buffers in the three states (based on 2010 Census data and CEQ Guidelines). 

Environmental justice impacts could result from post-lease construction and operation as 

described in Sections 4.13 and 5.13. These impacts would be considered in project-specific 

NEPA analyses that would be conducted at the lease (including, but not limited to, conversion 

from RD&D to commercial lease) and development phases of projects. 

6.1.3.13 Hazardous Materials and Waste Management 

 With few exceptions, the hazardous materials associated with the eight approved RD&D 

projects will be very similar. Commercially available fuels to support equipment and/or provide 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-172 

TABLE 6.1.3-5 Minority and Low-Income Populations in the Oil 

Shale Resource Area and Buffer 

Population Segment 

Colorado 

Block Groups 

Utah 

Block Groups 

 

Total population 151,660 55,869 

 

White, non-Hispanic 125,056 46,910 

 

Hispanic or Latino 21,930 4,031 

 

Non-Hispanic or Latino minorities 4,674 4,928 

 One race 2,747 3,917 

 Black or African American 620 136 

 American Indian or Alaskan Native 919 3,403 

 Asian 921 241 

 Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 132 109 

 Some other race 155 28 

 Two or more races 1,927 1,011 

 

Total minority 26,604 8,959 

 

Low-income 3,962 1,812 

 

Minority 

 ROI 17.5 16.0 

 State 30.0 19.6 

 

Low-income 

 ROI 7.3 10.5 

 State 12.2 10.8 

for comfort heating (natural gas, propane, diesel fuel, and gasoline) are expected to represent the 

largest category of hazardous materials present on-site. As stated in Section 4.1, it is assumed 

that on-site upgrading of recovered products will not take place at the RD&D project sites; 

therefore, hazardous materials and wastes specifically associated with upgrading activities will 

not be present at the RD&D facilities. 

 The products of oil shale development efforts will exhibit hazardous properties. Whether 

it is the raw shale oil recovered from the one RD&D project utilizing an aboveground retort or 

the recovered upgraded products that are anticipated at any of the seven in situ RD&D projects, 

the research nature of each of these projects suggests that the resulting products will exhibit 

characteristics unique to the particular recovery and retorting schemes that created them. 

Consequently, each of the RD&D products will need careful characterization (i.e., creation of a 

Material Safety Data Sheet [MSDS]) before appropriate management protocols can be 

established. However, despite the research nature of these ventures, developers still have 

responsibilities under the General Duty Clause of OSHA or the regulations promulgated at 

29 CFR 1910.1200 (Hazard Communication Standard) to protect their workers against the 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-173 

hazards of the products being created. It is assumed that those responsibilities will be met 

expeditiously and effectively in all cases. 

 Execution of some of the resource recovery techniques to be employed at the RD&D 

facilities will require the use of hazardous materials, sometimes in substantial amounts. 

Examples include the anhydrous ammonia that will be used as a refrigerant in each of the three 

Shell in situ RD&D projects and explosives that may be used in underground mining associated 

with the Enefit project. Small amounts of herbicides will also be used at each facility for 

vegetation management within industrial areas for fire safety. Neither explosives nor herbicides 

are expected to be stored on-site but instead will be brought to the site on an as-needed basis. 

 During RD&D operations, limited volumes of waste streams are expected to be 

generated. Those associated with similar activities will be virtually the same for each project. At 

the quantities likely to be generated, it is reasonable to expect that all the solid and hazardous 

wastes will be containerized and delivered to off-site facilities for treatment and disposal. The 

largest volume solid waste stream that can be anticipated is the spent shale that will be generated 

in the later RD&D phases of the Enefit project. Enefit anticipates producing 8,000 tons of spent 

shale during Phase 2 and 1.2 million tons during Phase 3; these spent shales will be disposed of 

either in the underground mine or in an on-site facility. At these amounts of spent shales, 

disposal at on-site facilities will likely be conducted under the auspices of permits issued by state 

or local authorities. Well drilling activities at the Shell projects and at the AMSO project will 

generate cuttings; however, such cuttings are expected to be nonhazardous and will be disposed 

of on-site. 

 Both sanitary and industrial wastewater streams will be generated at each of the RD&D 

projects. In most instances, volumes will be small. However, for each of the three Shell projects 

and the AMSO project, substantial quantities of well drilling fluids will be generated. It is 

expected that drilling fluids will be captured in temporary sediment ponds and recycled to a great 

extent. Management schemes for other wastewater streams vary among the six projects and 

involve combinations of surface discharge, recycling, disposal by subsurface injection, on-site 

storage and treatment, and off-site disposal at permitted facilities. In all instances, however, the 

management and disposal of these wastewaters will be subject to regulatory agency approval 

and, in some cases, permit requirements. 

 In addition, one of the by-products of aboveground retorting is water (sometimes referred 

to as pyrolysis water). This water will often contain hydrocarbon pyrolysis products that have 

enough polar character to be water soluble; however, the quality of pyrolysis water will vary. 

Shell anticipates that pyrolysis water from its projects will be initially collected in lined ponds 

and treated before being released. Others plan to containerize pyrolysis water in aboveground 

tanks prior to shipment off-site for treatment. Pyrolysis water that is free of hydrocarbon and 

heavy metal contamination may be suitable for use in dust control of spent shale disposal piles or 

as a wetting agent for the spent shale to promote adequate compaction in the disposal cell. 

Pyrolysis water is also created in all in situ retorting technologies and recovered from production 

wells, together with hydrocarbon pyrolysis products. Here, too, the quality of pyrolysis water can 

vary. Water with little to no contamination can be put to beneficial uses on the site such as for 

fugitive dust control on roads or reinjected downgradient of the retort zone to help the 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-174 

groundwater contours reequilibrate. Contaminated pyrolysis water will require treatment before 

discharge, either to surface water or to groundwater downgradient of the retort zone. 

 Potentially adverse health and environmental impacts could result from improper 

management of hazardous materials and waste streams. In general, impacts will result from the 

release of hazardous materials to the environment as a result of accident or improper storage and 

use practices. Likewise, impacts can result from accidental release from temporary storage 

facilities or improper management and control of on-site waste disposal or water treatment 

facilities. Direct impacts of such releases could include contamination of vegetation, soil, and 

surface and groundwater; indirect impacts on the public and on flora and fauna populations could 

subsequently result. If all applicable regulations governing the use, storage, and disposal of 

hazardous materials and regulations and permits governing the management of wastes are 

complied with and appropriate management practices are implemented, the adverse impacts 

associated with hazardous materials and most of the anticipated wastes are expected to be 

minimal to nonexistent. Concerns exist, however, for the potential of spent shale disposed of at 

the Enefit RD&D project to cause environmental damage. As documented in the project EA, 

however, Enefit intends to design and construct a spent shale disposal site equipped with 

adequate engineering features to ensure the capacity both to identify such impacts as they 

develop and to mitigate them to minor consequence. 

 Under Alternative 3, a total of 32,000 acres of land in Colorado and in Utah have already 

been allocated for RD&D projects and surrounding PRLA lands; an additional 640 acres of land 

is included in one RD&D proposal. Impacts related to hazardous materials and wastes could 

occur during future development of commercial oil shale projects within the Alternative 3 lease 

areas. Such impacts are generally independent of location and would be unique to the technology 

combinations used for oil shale development. However, impacts from hazardous materials and 

wastes are similar for some of the ancillary support activities that would be required for 

development of any oil shale facility regardless of the technology used. These include the 

impacts from development or expansion of support facilities such as employer-provided housing 

and power plants. 

 Hazardous materials and wastes could be used and generated during both the construction 

and operation of commercial oil shale facilities and supporting infrastructure (e.g., power plants). 

Hazardous materials impacts associated with project construction would be minimal and limited 

to the hazardous materials typically utilized in construction, such as fuels, lubricating oils, 

hydraulic fluids, glycol-based coolants and solvents, adhesives, and corrosion control coatings. 

Construction-related wastes could include landscape wastes from clearing and grading of the 

construction sites and other wastes typically associated with construction, none of which is 

expected to be hazardous (Section 4.14.1). 

 During project operations, hazardous materials could be utilized, and a variety of wastes 

(some hazardous) could be generated. Hazardous materials used include fuels, solvents, 

corrosion control coatings, flammable fuel gases, and herbicides (for vegetation clearing and 

management at facilities or along ROWs). The types and amounts of hazardous waste generated 

during operations will depend on the specific design of the commercial oil shale project (surface 

or subsurface mining, surface retorting, or in situ processes). Waste materials produced during 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-175 

operations may include spent shale, waste engine fuels and lubricants, pyrolysis water, 

flammable gases, volatile and flammable organic liquids, and heavier-molecular-weight organic 

compounds (Section 4.14.1). 

 Because the use of hazardous materials and the generation of wastes are directly related 

to the specific design of a commercial oil shale project, it is not possible to quantify projectrelated impacts of these materials. Under Alternative 3, individual facilities could be located 

anywhere within the area identified as available for leasing, pending project review and 

authorization. Accidental releases of the hazardous materials or wastes could affect natural 

resources (such as water quality or wildlife) and human health and safety (see Section 4.15) at 

locations wherever the individual projects are sited within the Alternative 3 lease areas. 

6.1.3.14 Health and Safety 

 For the in situ RD&D projects, chemical and physical hazards associated with mining 

will not be applicable. The types of health hazards discussed in Section 4.15 (Table 4.15-1) that 

may be of concern for workers at the in situ RD&D facilities are mainly injuries and hearing 

loss. Workers at the Enefit underground mine facility and construction workers could be exposed 

to respirable dusts and thus be at risk of developing lung disease. The inhalation hazard will be 

lower for workers at the in situ projects, because emissions will be lower. For all the RD&D 

projects, the number of cases of lung disease will likely be small (if any) given the small scale of 

RD&D operations, the low number of employees, and required adherence to occupational health 

and safety standards. 

 A rough estimate of the numbers of injuries and fatalities that will be expected under 

Alternative 3 can be made by using the numbers of direct jobs estimated (see Section 6.1.1.11.2) 

and published fatality and injury rates for construction and mining (NSC 2006). The 2004 

fatality and injury rates for construction are 11.6 per 100,000 full-time equivalents (FTEs) and 

6.4 per 100 FTEs, respectively; the rates for mining are 28.3 per 100,000 FTEs and 3.8 per 

100 FTEs, respectively. For this assessment, construction rates are used to estimate impacts for 

all phases of in situ projects. 

 For all 6 ongoing RD&D projects approved in 2007, the estimated total number of direct 

construction jobs is 930 (810 in Colorado and 120 in Utah), and the number of direct operations 

jobs is 655 (535 in Colorado and 120 in Utah). By using these employment numbers and 

appropriate fatality and injury rates, the estimated numbers of annual fatalities under Alternative 

3 are as follows: during construction, 0.14; during operations, 0.09. The estimated numbers of 

annual injuries under Alternative 3 are as follows: during construction, 75; during operations, 39. 

For all RD&D projects, a comprehensive facility health and safety plan and worker safety 

training will be required as part of the plan of development. Health and safety impacts for 

potential future commercial technologies on the PRLA lands would be qualitatively similar, but 

it is not possible to estimate the number of injuries and fatalities related to construction and 

operation of such facilities at this time. 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-176 

 Under Alternative 3, a total of 32,000 acres of land in Colorado and in Utah have already 

been allocated for RD&D projects and surrounding PRLA lands; an additional 640 acres of land 

is included in one RD&D proposal. Impacts could result from post-lease construction and 

operation as described in Section 4.15. These impacts would be considered in project-specific 

NEPA analyses that would be conducted at the lease (including, but not limited to, conversion 

from RD&D to commercial lease) and development phases of projects. 

6.1.4 Impacts of Alternative 4, Moderate Development 

 Alternative 4 would amend eight land use plans to make available 1,968,079 acres for 

application for commercial leasing (see Figures 2.3.3-9, 2.3.3-10, and 2.3.3-11) and is structured 

to remove all of the Adobe Town Very Rare or Uncommon Area, all additional ACECs 

designated since completion of the 2008 PEIS and ROD, and any potential ACECs from ongoing 

planning efforts, and to recognize that the management of both sage-grouse core habitat and 

LWC may affect the lands that will be available for commercial leasing. (See Sections 2.3.3 and 

2.3.3.2 for a complete description of Alternative 4, including the reason there is a range of acres 

to be designated.) Specific land use plan amendments are provided in Appendix C. 

 Lands other than those 1,968,079 acres to be designated as available for application for 

leasing for commercial development of oil shale under Alternative 4 that are currently open 

would be closed to such leasing and development, that is, the difference between 2,017,714 acres 

currently open and the actual acreage that would be designated in this alternative. As described 

below, the potential impacts on lands currently available for application for leasing for 

commercial development but considered in Alternative 4 for closure to such leasing and 

development would not be adverse, as no leasing or development would take place, and unless 

otherwise discussed, any benefit would accrue in proportion to the number of acres closed. 

 The eight land use plans that would be amended are as follows: 

• Colorado

 Glenwood Springs RMP (BLM 1988, as amended by the 2006 Roan 

Plateau Plan Amendment [BLM 2006i, 2007c, 2008a]) 

 Grand Junction RMP (BLM 1987) 

 White River RMP (BLM 1997a, as amended by the 2006 Roan Plateau 

Plan Amendment [BLM 2006i, 2007c, 2008a]) 

• Utah

 Price RMP (BLM 2008d) 

 Vernal RMP (BLM 2008e) 

• Wyoming

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

Coordinated Activity Plan [BLM 2006a]) 

 Kemmerer RMP (BLM 2010d) 

 Rawlins RMP (BLM 2008f) 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-177 

 As discussed in Section 2.3.3.3, these land use plans would be amended under 

Alternative 4 specifically to (1) designate lands within these most geologically prospective 

areas as available or not available for application for leasing and (2) identify any technology 

restrictions. 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 or not 

available for application for commercial leasing in the three-state study area, but there may be 

impacts on land values. The development of commercial oil shale projects on lands identified as 

remaining available for application for commercial leasing by these land use plan amendments, 

however, would have impacts on these resources. In addition, Alternative 4 could include the 

same level of development of the RD&D projects, as well as commercial development on their 

associated PRLAs, as described in Section 6.1.3 for Alternative 3. The effects of the RD&D 

projects under this alternative would be the same as those under Alternative 3. The following 

sections describe the impacts of Alternative 4 on the environment and the socioeconomic setting 

of the areas identified as available for application for leasing under this alternative. The impacts 

described would not be expected to occur with respect to the lands identified as not available for 

application for commercial oil shale leasing, apart from possible indirect impacts on such lands 

from activities that might occur on lands identified as available. 

 In general, potential impacts of future commercial development on specific resources 

located within the 1,472,370 to 1,799,733 acres cannot be quantified at this time because key 

information about the location of projects, the technologies employed, the project size or 

production level, and development time lines are unknown. Although it is not possible to 

quantify the impacts of future project development, it is possible to make observations and draw 

conclusions on the basis of certain lands being made available for application for leasing and 

their overlap with specific resources. The following sections identify the potential impacts that 

could accompany subsequent commercial oil shale leasing, many of which might be successfully 

avoided or mitigated depending on site- and project-specific factors and future regulations that 

would guide leasing actions. 

6.1.4.1 Land Use 

 Alternative 4 would amend the same eight land use plans as Alternative 2 but would 

identify 1,968,079 acres of public land in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming as being available for 

application for leasing for commercial leasing and development of oil shale. The amendment of 

the land use plans is expected to have no direct impacts on land uses, although there may be 

some impact on land values. The identification of these lands as available for application for 

commercial leasing and development of oil shale does not authorize or approve any grounddisturbing activities that could affect existing land uses. Existing land uses could, however, be 

adversely affected by future commercial oil shale development on these lands. 

 The nature of the impacts of Alternative 4 on land uses would be the same as those listed 

under Alternative 1 above, with exceptions that are included below. Alternative 4 makes fewer 

acres available for application for commercial oil shale leasing than does Alternative 1. 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-178 

 The impacts on land use from Alternative 4 could differ from those impacts on land use 

described for Alternative 1 in Section 6.1.1.1 in the following areas: 

• Alternative 4 removes from application for leasing an additional 

approximately 44,325 acres of land identified as ACECs (Table 6.1.1-1). 

• Alternative 4 removes 50,025 acres of the Adobe Town Very Rare or 

Uncommon Area that overlap with the most geologically prospective area 

from consideration from leasing. 

• Lands available for application for lease contain all or portions of areas that 

have been recognized by the BLM in Colorado and Utah as LWC. 

Table 6.1.1-2 lists these areas. Should commercial development occur on 

these lands, the identified wilderness characteristics in both the areas that are 

developed and those that border the developed areas would be lost. 

Alternative 4 includes approximately 88,217 acres of these lands that could be 

subject to development, which is about the same as Alternative 1. 

• Under this alternative, the 32,000 acres, including the existing RD&D leases 

will be available for future leasing if the current leaseholders relinquish their 

existing leases. 

• There are about 776,000 acres with oil shale resources that contain either 

sage-grouse core habitat or LWC in Alternative 4, but it is not possible to 

determine how much of this land ultimately will be committed to protection of 

these resources. Sage-grouse habitat makes up all but about 69,000 acres of 

these lands and potentially would be the largest factor in any reduction of land 

available for application for commercial leasing. There are no LWC within the 

most geologically prospective area in Wyoming, there are 6,680 acres of the 

White River LWC in Utah that have been committed to be managed to protect 

wilderness characteristics, and there is about 22,000 acres of LWC in 

Colorado that are still in the planning stage; therefore, it is not anticipated that 

protection of LWC lands will significantly reduce the total acreage available 

for application for commercial oil shale development in this alternative. 

Tables 2.3.3-4 and 2.3.3-5 present potentially available acreages ranging from 

1,384,237 to 1,968,079 acres, corresponding to 75% and 25% protection of 

sage-grouse habitat and LWC acreages. 

• Several wild horse HMAs overlap with the lands that are identified as 

available for application for commercial leasing, including the PiceanceEast 

Douglas Creek HMA in Colorado (60,836 acres); the Hill Creek HMA in 

Utah (29,628 acres); and the Adobe Town (58,383 acres), Little Colorado 

(207,702 acres), Salt Wells Creek (117,186 acres), and White Mountain 

(170,868 acres) HMAs in Wyoming (Figure 6.1.4-1). Any oil shale 

development that occurs in HMAs would need to protect wild horses and 

burros under the Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act of 1971. 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-179 

FIGURE 6.1.4-1 Lands Available for Application for Oil Shale Leasing under Alternative 4 in 

Relation to Wild Horse and Burro Herd Management Areas
Final OSTS PEIS 6-180 

6.1.4.2 Soil and Geologic Resources 

 Under Alternative 4, land use plans in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming would be amended 

to designate 1,968,079 acres as available for commercial oil shale leasing (Section 2.3.3.3). The 

designation of leasing areas, as well as the amendment of land use plans to incorporate these 

areas, would not affect soil or geologic resources because these actions do not authorize or 

approve any ground-disturbing activities. Soil and geologic resources could, however, be 

affected by future commercial oil shale development on these lands. 

 Construction-related activities could directly disturb surface and subsurface soils during 

clearing and grading activities and construction of project facilities and infrastructure. This 

disturbance could include soil disturbance, removal, and compaction, and disturbed areas would 

be more susceptible to the effects of precipitation and wind-driven erosion (see Section 4.3.1). 

Surface and subsurface mining activities during project operations would directly disturb 

geologic resources. Erosion of exposed soils could lead to increased sedimentation of nearby 

water bodies and to the generation of fugitive dust. Soils in project areas would remain 

susceptible to erosion until completion of construction, mining, and oil shale-processing 

activities, and site stabilization and reclamation (e.g., revegetation of pipeline ROWs, surface 

mine reclamation). Impacts on soil and geologic resources would be limited to the specific 

project location as well as areas where associated off-lease infrastructure (such as access roads, 

utility ROWs, and power plants) would be located. For any project, the erosion potential of the 

soils will be a direct function of the lease and project location, and the soil characteristics, 

vegetative cover, and topography (i.e., slope) at that location. Development in areas that have 

erosive soils and steep slopes (e.g., in excess of 25%) could lead to serious erosion problems at 

those locations. 

 Under Alternative 4, project-related impacts could occur wherever individual projects are 

located within the 1,968,079 acres identified for application for potential leasing under this 

alternative. Wyoming would have the most land (967,446 acres) and Colorado the least land 

(340,147 acres) where commercial oil shale development could affect soil and geologic 

resources. 

6.1.4.3 Paleontological Resources 

 Under Alternative 4, land use plans in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming would be amended 

to designate 1,968,079 acres as available for commercial oil shale leasing (Section 2.3.3.3). 

Paleontological resources within these areas could be adversely affected if leasing and 

subsequent commercial development occur. Of the acreage designated under Alternative 4, a 

total of 1,756,440 acres (about 89% of the 1,968,079 acres that would be available under 

Alternative 4) have been identified as overlying geologic formations having a high potential to 

contain important paleontological resources (Murphey and Daitch 2007). Approximately 

329,550 of these acres are in the Piceance Basin, Colorado; 587,850 acres are in the Uinta Basin, 

Utah; and 839,040 acres are in the Green River and Washakie Basins, Wyoming. All existing 

ACECs, some of which have been identified for their paleontological values, would not be made 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-181 

available for application for leasing under this alternative, and therefore the paleontological 

resources in these areas would not be affected under this alternative. 

 Impacts from oil shale development 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. These impacts and the 

application of mitigation measures to reduce or eliminate them are discussed in Section 4.4. 

6.1.4.4 Water Resources 

 Under Alternative 4, land use plans in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming would be amended 

to designate 1,968,079 acres as available for commercial oil shale leasing (Section 2.3.3.3). The 

acreage available for application for leasing in this alternative specifically excludes all ACECs 

and the whole of the Adobe Town Very Rare or Uncommon Area (see Table 2.3.3-3). Excluding 

these lands from application for leasing would provide complete protection from direct impacts 

from oil shale development for the resources found on these lands. However, indirect effects are 

still possible. In those areas that are available for application for leasing in Alternative 4, the 

potential impacts would be the same as described in Section 6.1.1.4 of this PEIS. 

 The total stream miles within the four oil shale basins is approximately 753 mi. 

Alternative 4 contains approximately 661 mi of these perennial streams (see Table 6.1.1-3). 

 The assessment of impacts on water resources under Alternative 4 has the same 

limitations as referenced under Alternative 1. Without site-specific information regarding 

location and type of technology to be employed, it is not possible to assess the overall impacts of 

this alternative. 

6.1.4.5 Air Quality 

 Under Alternative 4, a total of 1,99,079 acres of public land would remain available 

within Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming for application for leasing for commercial development of 

oil shale (Section 2.3.3.3). Of the acreage designated under Alternative 4, about 340,147 acres 

are in the Piceance Basin, Colorado; 655,821 acres in the Uinta Basin, Utah; and 967,446 acres 

in the Green River and Washakie Basins, Wyoming. Air resources in the three states would not 

be affected by this action. Air resources in and around these areas could, however, be affected by 

potential future commercial oil shale development within the basin areas. Under Alternative 4, 

local, short-term air quality impacts could be incurred as a result of (1) PM releases (fugitive 

dust, diesel exhaust) during construction activities such as site clearing and grading in 

preparation of facility construction, and (2) exhaust emissions (NOx, CO, PM, VOC, and SO2) 

from construction equipment and vehicles (see Section 4.6). These potential impacts would be of 

short duration, and largely limited to specific project locations and the immediately adjacent 

areas. Similar short-term impacts could also occur in other areas where project-related electric 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-182 

transmission lines, oil pipelines, transportation ROWs, and other infrastructure would be located 

and developed. 

 Similar but longer term impacts on local air quality could occur during normal project 

operations such as mining and processing of the oil shale. Processing activities could also result 

in regional impacts on air quality and AQRVs, such as visibility and acid deposition, which 

could extend beyond the lease areas identified under Alternative 4. These regional impacts would 

be associated with operational releases of NOx, CO, PM, and other pollutants (VOCs and SO2) 

during oil shale processing (Section 4.6). In addition, ozone precursors of NOx and VOC from 

oil shale development could exacerbate wintertime high-ozone occurrences already prevalent in 

the study area. Operational releases of certain HAPs (e.g., benzene, toluene, and formaldehyde) 

as well as diesel PM could also affect on-site workers and nearby residences, but these impacts 

would be localized to the immediate project location and subject to further analysis prior to 

implementation. 

 During all phases of oil shale development, GHG emissions of primarily CO2 and lesser 

amounts of CH4 and N2O from combustion sources could contribute to climate change to some 

extent. 

 If development of oil shale requires expansion of capacity of existing electric power 

plants, or the construction and operation of new electric power plants off-lease, those would also 

have longer term impacts on regional air quality. Table 6.1.6-3 presents a summary of the 

emissions from coal-fired electric power plants. 

6.1.4.6 Noise 

 Under Alternative 4, a total of 1,968,079 acres of public land would remain available 

within Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming for application for leasing for commercial development of 

oil shale. Ambient noise levels would not be affected by this action. However, ambient noise 

levels could be affected by future commercial development of oil shale. Under Alternative 4, 

local, short-term changes in ambient noise levels could be incurred during the construction, 

operation, and reclamation of oil shale projects (see Section 4.7.1). Project-related increases in 

noise levels could disturb or displace wildlife and recreational users in nearby areas. Noise 

impacts on wildlife and recreational users are discussed in Sections 4.8.1.3 and 4.2.1.4, 

respectively. 

 Increased noise levels could result from the operation of construction equipment (graders, 

excavators, and haul trucks) and from any blasting activities that might occur. Increases in noise 

levels during operations could be associated with mining and oil shale–processing activities and 

could be more long term than construction-related noise. These types of impacts would be 

largely limited to specific project locations and the immediate surrounding area. Similar shortterm impacts could also occur in other areas where electric transmission lines, oil pipelines, 

transportation ROWs, and other infrastructure would be located, developed, and operated. For 

example, ambient noise levels could increase in the immediate vicinity of any pipeline pump 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-183 

stations and be affected by project-related vehicular traffic at the project site and related 

locations (such as access roads to the site). 

 Construction-related noise levels could exceed EPA guidelines and/or Colorado 

regulations at some distances from the construction sites (there are currently no state 

guidelines/regulations for Utah or Wyoming; however, local jurisdictions regulate construction 

noise). Similarly, operational noise associated with mining and retort activities could, in the 

absence of mitigation, exceed EPA guidelines and/or Colorado regulations at some project 

locations. Noise generated as a result of project-related vehicular traffic is not expected to exceed 

EPA guideline and/or Colorado regulation levels except for short durations and in areas close to 

roads or traffic. 

 In the absence of lease- and project-specific information, it is not possible at the level of 

this PEIS to identify the duration and magnitude of any project-related changes in noise levels. 

Changes in ambient noise levels due to project development could occur wherever a project is 

located within the 1,968,079 acres identified as available for application for leasing under 

Alternative 4. 

6.1.4.7 Ecological Resources 

 Under Alternative 4, a total of1,968,079 acres of public land would remain available 

within Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming for application for leasing for commercial development of 

oil shale. These lands support a wide variety of biota and their habitats (Section 3.7). Ecological 

resources in these areas would not be affected by the identification of lands available for 

application for leasing or by amendment of land use plans to incorporate these potential lease 

areas. However, ecological resources in and around these areas could be affected by future 

commercial development of oil shale in these areas. The following sections describe the potential 

impacts on ecological resources that may result from commercial oil shale development within 

the areas identified as available for application for commercial leasing under Alternative 4. 

 The magnitude of the impact on specific ecological resources that could be affected by 

commercial oil shale development in areas identified as available for application for commercial 

leasing in Alternative 4 would depend on the specific location of the commercial oil shale 

projects as well as on specific project design. 

6.1.4.7.1 Aquatic Resources. Under Alternative 4, a total of 1,968,079 acres of public 

land would remain available within Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming for application for leasing for 

commercial development of oil shale. There are no impacts on aquatic habitats associated with 

this land use designation. Impacts could result, however, from post-lease construction and 

operation as described in Section 4.8.1.1. These impacts would be considered in project-specific 

NEPA analyses that would be conducted at the lease (including conversion from any RD&D to a 

commercial lease) and development phases of projects. 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-184 

 Potential impacts on aquatic resources from oil shale development could result primarily 

from increased turbidity and sedimentation, changes to water table levels, degradation of surface 

water quality (e.g., alteration of water temperature, salinity, and nutrient levels), release of toxic 

substances to surface water, and increased public access to aquatic habitats as described in 

Section 4.8.1.1. As described in Section 4.8.1.1, there is a potential for development and 

production activities in upland areas to affect surface water and groundwater beyond the area 

where surface disturbance or water withdrawals are occurring. Consequently, the analysis here 

considers the potential for impacts in waterways up to 2 mi beyond the boundary of the lands 

that would be allocated for potential leasing under this alternative. However, as project 

development activities become more distant from waterways, the potential for negative effects 

on aquatic resources is reduced. For the analysis of potential impacts on each of the alternatives 

considered in the PEIS, it was assumed that the potential for negative impacts on aquatic 

resources increases as the area potentially affected (i.e., the area that would be considered for 

leasing) increases and as the number and extent of waterways within a 2-mi zone surrounding 

those areas increases. 

 Under Alternative 4, 31 perennial streams and about 245 mi of perennial stream habitat 

within the Piceance, Uinta, Green River, and Washakie Basins are directly overlain by areas that 

would be potentially available for oil shale development. When an additional 2-mi zone 

surrounding these areas is considered, 49 perennial streams and about 662 mi of perennial stream 

habitat could be affected by future development activities (Table 6.1.1-4). The development of 

commercial oil shale projects in the areas identified under Alternative 4 could affect aquatic 

biota and their habitats during project construction and operations, thereby resulting in shortand/or long-term changes (disturbance or loss) in the abundance and distribution of affected 

biota and their habitats. As described in Section 4.8.1.1, impacts from water quality degradation 

and water depletions could affect resources not only in areas within or immediately adjacent to 

leased areas, but also in areas farther downstream in affected watersheds. The nature and 

magnitude of impacts, as well as the specific resources affected, would depend on the location of 

the areas where project construction and facilities occur, the aquatic resources present in those 

areas, and the mitigation measures implemented. 

 The types of aquatic habitats and organisms that could be impacted by future 

development in the vicinity of the Piceance, Uinta, Green River, and Washakie Basins are 

described in Section 3.7.1. Some of these aquatic habitats could contain federally listed 

endangered fish, state-listed or BLM-designated sensitive species (Section 3.7.4), and other 

native fish and invertebrate species that could be negatively affected by development. However, 

because most of the areas within the oil shale basins that contain known sensitive aquatic 

habitats and species would be excluded from consideration for leasing via land use plan 

amendments under this alternative, the potential impacts on aquatic resources are likely 

considerably smaller under Alternative 4 than under Alternative 1. Specific impacts would 

depend greatly upon the locations selected, methods of extraction used, and mitigation measures 

implemented by future projects. Project-specific NEPA analyses would be conducted prior to 

any future leasing decisions to evaluate potential impacts in greater detail. 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-185 

6.1.4.7.2 Plant Communities and Habitats. Under Alternative 4, a total of 

1,968,079 acres of public land would remain available within Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming for 

application for leasing for commercial development of oil shale. There would be no impacts on 

plant communities and habitats associated with identifying lands as available for application for 

commercial leasing. Impacts could result, however, from post-lease construction and operation 

as described in Section 4.8.1.2. These impacts would be considered in greater detail in projectspecific NEPA analyses that would be conducted at the lease (including conversion from any 

RD&D to a commercial lease) and development phases of projects. 

 Areas identified as available for application for commercial leasing under Alternative 4 

support a wide variety of plant communities and habitats (see Section 3.7.2). These areas include 

approximately 152,338 acres that are currently identified in BLM land use plans for the 

protection of wetlands, riparian habitats, floodplains, special status and sensitive plant species, 

and remnant vegetation associations. Direct and indirect impacts on plant communities and 

habitats could be incurred on these areas during project construction and operation, extending 

over a period of several decades (especially within facility and infrastructure footprints) (see 

Section 4.8.1.2). Some impacts, such as habitat loss, may continue beyond the termination of 

shale oil production. 

 Direct impacts would include the destruction of vegetation and habitat during land 

clearing on the lease site and where ancillary facilities, such as access roads, pipelines, 

transmission lines, employer-provided housing, and new power plants, would be located. Soils 

disturbed during construction would be susceptible to the introduction and establishment of 

non-native plant communities during reclamation of project areas and create a source of future 

colonization and subsequent degradation of adjacent undisturbed areas. Plant communities and 

habitats could also be adversely affected by changes in water quality or availability, resulting in 

plant mortality or reduced growth, with subsequent changes in community composition and 

structure and declines in habitat quality. Indirect impacts on terrestrial and wetland habitats on or 

off the project site could result from land clearing and exposed soil; soil compaction; and 

changes in topography, surface drainage, and infiltration characteristics. These impacts could 

lead to changes in the abundance and distribution of plant species and changes in community 

structure, as well the introduction or spread of invasive species. 

 Affected plant communities and habitats could incur short- and/or long-term changes in 

species composition, abundance, and distribution. While many impacts would be local in nature 

(occurring within construction and operation footprints and in the immediate surrounding area), 

the introduction of invasive species could affect much larger areas. The nature and magnitude of 

these impacts, as well as the communities or habitats affected, would depend on the location of 

the areas where project construction and facilities would occur, the plant communities and 

habitats present in those areas, and the mitigation measures implemented to address impacts. 

 The areas identified as available for application for commercial leasing under 

Alternative 4 potentially include locations outside of ACECs that support oil shale endemic plant 

species. Local populations of oil shale endemics, which typically occur as small scattered 

populations on a limited number of sites, could be reduced or lost as a result of oil shale 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-186 

development activities. Establishment and long-term survival of these species on reclaimed land 

may be difficult. 

 No ACECs are included in the lands available under this alternative. Therefore direct 

impacts on sensitive plant species and plant communities within ACECs would not occur. 

However, ten ACECs are located adjacent to the Alternative 4 footprint: Duck Creek, Dudley 

Bluffs, Ryan Gulch, Trapper Creek/Northwater Creek, and East Fork Parachute Creek, all 

located adjacent to the Piceance Basin; Pariette Wetlands, Nine Mile Canyon, and Lower Green 

River, all located adjacent to the Uinta Basin; Special Status Plant Species and Greater Red 

Creek, both located adjacent to the Green River Basin. Each ACEC includes rare plant species 

and/or rare or important plant communities. Indirect impacts on these species and communities 

could occur. 

 Twelve ACECs with rare plant species and/or rare or important plant communities are 

located near (within 5 mi) the Alternative 4 footprint: Upper Greasewood Creek (1 mi), Lower 

Greasewood Creek (3.1 mi), Yanks Gulch (3.6 mi), South Cathedral Bluffs (3.1 mi), East 

Douglas Creek (2.7 mi), Magpie Gulch (3.3 mi), Deer Gulch (0.4 mi), and White River Riparian 

(2.7 mi), all near the Piceance Basin; Raven Ridge (2.2 mi), Oil Spring Mountain (4.4 mi), and 

White River Riparian (0.6 mi), all near the Uinta Basin; and Special Status Plant Species (0.9 mi) 

and Hells Canyon (2.9 mi), both near the Washakie Basin. Indirect impacts on the sensitive 

species or communities within these ACECs could occur. Impacts would generally decrease with 

increasing distance. 

6.1.4.7.3 Wildlife. Under Alternative 4, a total of 1,968,079 acres of public land would 

remain available within Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming for application for leasing for 

commercial development of oil shale. While no impacts on wildlife species associated with the 

identification of lands as available for application for commercial leasing are expected, impacts 

could result from post-lease construction and operation as described in Section 4.8.1.3. These 

impacts would be considered in greater detail in project-specific NEPA analyses that would be 

conducted at the lease and development phases of projects. The areas available for application 

for leasing support a diverse array of wildlife and habitats (see Section 3.7.3). Various 

stipulations are included in the BLM RMPs that provide protection for different wildlife species. 

These include lands designated as (1) NSO (where the BLM does not allow long-term grounddisturbing activities [i.e., with an impact that would last longer than two years]); (2) CSU (where 

the BLM places special restrictions, including shifting a ground-disturbing activity by more than 

200 m from the proposed location to another location to protect a specific resource such as a 

raptor nest); and (3) TL (where the BLM may allow specified activities, but not in those lands 

during certain sensitive seasons such as when raptors are nesting or when big game are on their 

winter ranges). Table 6.1.4-1 presents the acreage of habitat protected by these stipulations in 

areas available for application for oil shale leasing in Alternative 4. In most instances, the 

stipulations are for TLs. 

 Areas identified in Alternative 4 as available for application for commercial leasing do 

overlap with areas identified by state natural resource agencies as seasonal habitat for big game 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-187 

TABLE 6.1.4-1 Wildlife Habitat Protected by Stipulations in BLM RMPs within the 

Alternative 4 Oil Shale Lease Areas 

 

Area of Habitat (acres) 

Habitat Description Coloradoa Utaha Wyominga

 

Birds 

 Raptor nesting areas 26,730 (29,349)b –c 76,989 (132,850) 

 Raptor nesting and fledging habitat 59 (61) – – 

 Raptor habitat/nesting areas – – – 

 Raptor concentration areas – – 10,036 (11,912) 

 

Big Game 

 Big game severe winter range 83,134 (90,088) – – 

 Big game winter range 24 (25) – – 

 Big game 30 (31) – – 

 Deer and elk summer range 162,099 (165,409) – – 

 Elk crucial winter habitat – 65,787 (67,854) 61,041 (80,184) 

 Elk calving – 1,190 (1,190) 10,902 (19,389) 

 Mule deer crucial winter habitat – 110,424 (112,993) 89 (889) 

 Mule deer winter range – – 60,871 (106,089) 

 Mule deer fawning – 20,984 (40,789) 

 Mule deer migration corridor – 5,021 (5,038) 

 Moose winter range – – 11 (11) 

 Pronghorn crucial winter habitat – – 10,486 (20,215) 

 Pronghorn winter range – – 237,866 (455,557) 

 

Other 

 Wildlife seclusion above the rim 70 (3,282) – – 

 Wildlife seclusion areas 11 (11) – – 

a Acreage may be overestimated because of unknown degree of habitat overlap among species or habitat 

types for a species. For these reasons, columns should not be totaled. 

b Numbers in parentheses are the wildlife habitat acreage identified for protection within the most 

geologically prospective lands. 

c A dash indicates not identified for protection, or identified otherwise for protection within the state. 

species. These areas include mule deer and elk winter and summer ranges (Figures 6.1.4-2 and 

6.1.4-3, respectively). Table 6.1.4-2 presents the acreages of these habitats (as identified by state 

resource agencies) that occur in the Alternative 4 lease areas and that could be impacted by 

future commercial oil shale development in these areas. 

 Impacts on wildlife from commercial oil shale projects (see Section 4.8.1.3) in 

Alternative 4 lease areas could occur in a number of ways and would be related to (1) habitat 

loss, alteration, or fragmentation; (2) disturbance and displacement of biota; (3) mortality; 

(4) exposure to hazardous materials; and (5) increase in human access. These impacts could 

 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-188 

FIGURE 6.1.4-2 Lands Available for Application for Oil Shale Leasing under Alternative 4 in 

Relation to the Summer and Winter Ranges of the Mule Deer 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-189 

FIGURE 6.1.4-3 Lands Available for Application for Oil Shale Leasing under Alternative 4 in 

Relation to the Summer and Winter Ranges of the Elk 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-190 

TABLE 6.1.4-2 State-Identified Elk and Mule Deer Habitat 

Present in the Oil Shale Potential Lease Areas Identified under 

Alternative 4 

Area of Habitat (acres) 

Habitat Description Colorado Utah Wyoming Total 

 

Mule Deer 

Winter habitat 239,186 253,935 329,675 822,796 

Summer habitat 171,852 0 NAa 171,852 

 

Elk 

Winter habitat 313,814 266,101 234,247 814.162 

Summer habitat 171,633 0 NA 171,633 

a NA = data not available. 

result in changes in species distribution and abundance; habitat use; changes in behavior; 

collisions with structures or vehicles; changes in predator populations; and chronic or acute 

toxicity from hydrocarbons, herbicides, or other contaminant exposures. 

 Wildlife could also be affected by human activities not directly associated with the oil 

shale project or its workforce but instead associated with the increased access to BLMadministered lands that had previously received little use. The construction of new access roads 

or improvements to old access roads could lead to increased human access into the area. 

Potential impacts associated with increased access include (1) the disturbance of wildlife from 

human activities, including an increase in legal and illegal take and an increase of invasive 

vegetation, (2) an increase in the incidence of fires, and (3) an increase in runoff that could 

adversely affect riparian or other wetland areas important to wildlife. 

 The potential for impacts on wildlife and their habitats from commercial oil shale 

development is directly related to the amount of land disturbance that would occur with a 

commercial project (including its ancillary facilities, such as power plants and utility and 

pipeline ROWs), the duration and timing of construction and operation periods, and the habitat 

affected by development (i.e., the location of the project). Indirect effects, such as impacts 

resulting from the erosion of disturbed land surfaces, water depletions, contamination, and 

disturbance and harassment, are also considered. Their magnitude is also considered to be 

proportional to the amount of land disturbance. 

6.1.4.7.4 Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species. Under Alternative 4, land 

use plans would be amended to identify 1,968,079 acres of land in Colorado, Utah, and 

Wyoming as remaining available for application for leasing for commercial development of oil 

shale (see Table 2.3.2-2 for a summary of Alternative 4 for commercial oil shale development). 

There would be no impacts on threatened, endangered, and sensitive species associated with this 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-191 

land use plan amendment action. Impacts could result, however, from post-lease construction 

and operation as described in Section 4.8.1.4. These impacts would be considered in greater 

detail in project-specific NEPA analyses that would be conducted at the commercial lease and 

development phases of projects. Various stipulations are included in the BLM RMPs that provide 

protection for various threatened, endangered, and sensitive species. These include lands 

designated as (1) NSO (where the BLM does not allow long-term ground-disturbing activities 

[i.e., with an impact that would last longer than 2 years]), (2) CSU (where the BLM places 

special restrictions, including shifting a ground-disturbing activity by more than 200 m from the 

proposed location to another location to protect a specific resource such as sage-grouse leks), and 

(3) TL (where the BLM may allow specified activities but not during certain sensitive seasons 

such as sage-grouse brooding seasons). Table 6.1.4-3 identifies the amount of habitats protected 

by these stipulations in areas available for application for oil shale leasing in Alternative 4. In 

most instances, the stipulations for these species are TLs. Alternative 4 would include more than 

382,000 acres for which lease stipulations have been established in existing RMPs to protect 

federally listed and candidate species, BLM-designated sensitive species, and other special status 

species. 

 Under Alternative 4, 181 of the 202 federal candidate, BLM-designated sensitive, and 

state-listed species listed in Table 6.1.4-4 and 21 of the 23 federally listed threatened or 

endangered species listed in Table 6.1.4-5 could occur in areas that would remain available for 

application for commercial leasing. This determination is based on records of occurrence in 

project counties of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming, species occurrences from state natural 

heritage programs,12 and the presence of potentially suitable habitat.13 Potential lease areas 

include about 99 mi of critical habitat for Colorado River endangered fishes in Colorado and 

Utah; designated critical habitat for the Mexican spotted owl (Strix occidentalis lucida) also 

occurs about 5 mi south of potential lease areas in Utah (Figure 6.1.4-4). Greater sage-grouse 

(Centrocercus urophasianus) core habitats14 and lek sites are shown in Figure 6.1.4-5. Under 

Alternative 4, potential oil shale lease areas intersect approximately 53,691 acres, 171,771 acres, 

and 485,050 acres of core sage-grouse habitat in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming, respectively. 

 

 

12 Spatial data were obtained from state natural heritage program or conservation offices that represented USGS 

quad-level or township range-level occurrences of species (CNHP 2011; UDWR 2011; WYNDD 2011a). A 

spatial analysis was performed to determine the distance of recorded occurrences of each species to the potential 

lease areas. For species tracked in these state databases, these distance measurements are provided in 

Tables 6.1.4.-4 and 6.1.4-5. 

13 Spatial models representing potentially suitable habitat of terrestrial vertebrate wildlife species were obtained 

from USGS (2007) and WYNDD (2011b). For species with an available habitat model, a spatial analysis was 

performed to quantify the amount of potentially suitable habitat within the potential lease areas. This 

quantification is presented in Tables 6.1.4.-4 and 6.1.4-5. 

14 Data and habitats considered as core or priority greater sage-grouse habitat for this PEIS are discussed in a text 

box in Section 3.7.4.3.1. 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-192 

TABLE 6.1.4-3 Habitat for Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species Protected by 

Stipulations in BLM RMPs within the Alternative 4 Oil Shale Lease Areas 

 

Area of Habitat (acres) 

Habitat Description Coloradoa Utaha Wyominga

 

Plants 

 Habitat for BLM special status plants 41,166 (46,680)b –c 922 (985) 

 

Birds 

 Bald eagle habitat 1,462 (1,463) 14,467 (36,920) – 

 Habitat for listed, proposed, or candidate 

 threatened or endangered and BLM- 

 designated sensitive raptors other than 

 bald eagle 

2,100 (2,100) – – 

 Sage-grouse habitat 43,585 (43,806) 61,987 (62,068) 263,271 (764,055) 

 

Mammals 

 Black-footed ferret habitat – 38,041 (38,046) – 

a Acreage may be overestimated because of unknown degree of habitat overlap among species or habitat types 

for a species. For these reasons, columns should not be totaled. 

b Numbers in parentheses are the acreages identified for protection within the most geologically prospective 

lands. 

c A dash indicates not identified for protection, or identified otherwise for protection within the state. 

 The potential for impacts on threatened, endangered, and sensitive species (and their 

habitats) from commercial oil shale development is directly related to the amount of land 

disturbance that could occur with a commercial project (including its ancillary facilities, such 

as power plants and utility and pipeline ROWs), the duration and timing of construction and 

operation periods, and the habitats affected by development. Indirect effects, such as impacts 

resulting from the erosion of disturbed land surfaces, surface or groundwater depletions, 

contamination, and disturbance and harassment of animal species, are also considered, but their 

relative magnitude is considered proportional to the amount of land disturbance. 

 Potential impacts on threatened, endangered, and sensitive species under Alternative 4 

are similar to or the same as impacts on aquatic resources, plant communities and habitats, and 

wildlife described in Sections 6.1.4.7.1, 6.1.4.7.2, and 6.1.4.7.3, respectively. The most 

important difference is the potential consequence of the impacts. Because of their low population 

sizes, threatened and endangered species are far more vulnerable than more common and 

widespread species. Low population size makes them more vulnerable to the effects of habitat 

fragmentation, habitat alteration, habitat degradation, human disturbance and harassment, 

mortality of individuals, and the loss of genetic diversity. Specific impacts associated with 

development would depend on the locations of projects relative to species populations and the 

 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-193 

TABLE 6.1.4-4 Potential Effects of Commercial Oil Shale Development under Alternative 4 on 

BLM-Designated Sensitive Species, Federal Candidates for Listing, State-Listed Species, and State 

Species of Special Concern 

Scientific Name Common Name Statusa

States and Counties 

within the Study Area 

in Which Species 

May Occur Potential for Effectb

 

Plants 

Abies concolor White fir WY-SC WY–Sweetwater Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area. 

 

Achnatherum 

swallenii 

Swallen mountainricegrass WY-SC WY–Lincoln, 

Sublette 

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area. 

 

Amsonia jonesii Jones blue star BLM-S UT–Duchesne, 

Emery, Garfield, 

Grand, San Juan, 

Uintah, Wayne 

No impact. Suitable habitat for this 

species is not known to occur in the 

vicinity of any study areas. Nearest 

occurrences are approximately 25 mi 

from the study area in Utah. 

 

Androstephium 

breviflorum 

Purple funnel-lily WY-SC WY–Sweetwater Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area. 

 

Antennaria 

arcuata 

Meadow pussytoes BLM-S; 

WY-SC 

WY–Sublette No impact. Suitable habitat for this 

species is not known to occur in the 

vicinity of any study areas. Nearest 

occurrences are approximately 30 mi 

from the study area in Wyoming. 

 

Aquilegia 

scopulorum var.

goodrichii 

Utah columbine BLM-S UT–Carbon, 

Duchesne, Emery, 

Grand, Uintah 

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Arabis vivariensis Park rockcress BLM-S UT–Uintah Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Artemisia biennis 

var. diffusa 

Mystery 

wormwood 

BLM-S; 

WY-SC 

WY–Sweetwater Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area. 

 

Astragalus 

bisulcatus var.

haydenianus 

Hayden’s 

milkvetch 

WY-SC WY–Sweetwater, 

Uinta 

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area. 

 

Astragalus 

calycosus var.

calycosus 

King’s milkvetch WY-SC WY–Sweetwater, 

Uinta 

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area. 

 

Astragalus 

coltonii var.

moabensis 

Moab milkvetch WY-SC WY–Sweetwater, 

Uinta 

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area. 

 

Astragalus 

debequaeus 

Debeque milkvetch BLM-S CO–Garfield Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area. 

Quad-level occurrences are within 5 mi 

from the study area in Colorado. 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-194 

TABLE 6.1.4-4 (Cont.)

Scientific Name Common Name Statusa

States and Counties 

within the Study Area 

in Which Species 

May Occur Potential for Effectb

 

Plants (Cont.) 

Astragalus 

detritalis 

Debris milkvetch BLM-S CO–Rio Blanco; 

UT–Duchesne, 

Uintah 

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area. 

Quad-level occurrences of this species 

intersect the study areas in Colorado and 

Utah. 

 

Astragalus 

duchesnensis 

Duchesne 

milkvetch 

BLM-S CO–Rio Blanco; 

UT–Duchesne, 

Uintah 

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area. 

Quad-level occurrences of this species 

intersect the study area in Utah. 

 

Astragalus 

equisolensis 

Horseshoe 

milkvetch 

BLM-S UT–Uintah Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Astragalus 

hamiltonii 

Hamilton’s 

milkvetch 

BLM-S UT–Uintah Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Astragalus 

lentiginosus var.

salinus 

Sodaville milkvetch WY-SC WY–Lincoln, Uinta Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area. 

 

Astragalus 

musiniensis 

Ferron milkvetch BLM-S CO–Garfield; 

UT–Emery, Garfield, 

Grand, Wayne 

No impact. Suitable habitat for this 

species is not known to occur in the 

vicinity of any study areas. Nearest 

occurrences are approximately 20 mi 

from the study area in Utah. 

 

Astragalus 

naturitensis 

Naturita milkvetch BLM-S CO–Garfield; 

UT–San Juan 

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area. 

Quad-level occurrences are within 8 mi 

from the study area in Colorado. 

 

Astragalus 

paysonii 

Payson’s milkvetch WY-SC WY–Lincoln, 

Sublette 

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area. 

 

Astragalus 

proimanthus 

Precocious 

milkvetch 

BLM-S; 

WY-SC 

WY–Sweetwater Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area. 

Quad-level occurrences of this species 

intersect the study area in Wyoming. 

 

Astragalus 

racemosus var.

treleasei 

Trelease’s 

racemose milkvetch 

BLM-S; 

WY-SC 

WY–Sublette, Uinta Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area. 

Quad-level occurrences are within 6 mi 

from the study area in Wyoming. 

 

Atriplex falcata Sickle saltbush WY-SC WY–Sublette, 

Sweetwater, Uinta 

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area. 

 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-195 

TABLE 6.1.4-4 (Cont.)

Scientific Name Common Name Statusa

States and Counties 

within the Study Area 

in Which Species 

May Occur Potential for Effectb

 

Plants (Cont.) 

Atriplex wolfii Wolf’s orache WY-SC WY–Sweetwater Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area. 

 

Boechera 

crandallii 

Crandall’s 

rockcress 

WY-SC WY–Sweetwater Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area. 

 

Boechera selbyi Selby’s rockcress WY-SC WY–Sweetwater Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area. 

 

Bolophyta 

ligulata 

Ligulate feverfew BLM-S CO–Rio Blanco Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area. 

Quad-level occurrences are within 4 mi 

from the study area in Utah. 

 

Brickellia 

microphylla var.

scabra 

Little-leaved 

brickell-bush 

WY-SC WY–Sweetwater Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area. 

 

Ceanothus 

martinii 

Utah mountain lilac WY-SC WY–Lincoln, 

Sweetwater 

No impact. Suitable habitat for this 

species is not known to occur in the 

vicinity of the WY study areas. Nearest 

occurrences are approximately 70 mi 

from the study area in Wyoming. 

 

Cercocarpus 

ledifolius var.

intricatus 

Dwarf mountain 

mahogany 

WY-SC WY–Sweetwater Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area. 

 

Chamaechaenactis scaposa Fullstem WY-SC WY–Sweetwater Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area. 

 

Chrysothamnus 

greenei 

Greene rabbitbrush WY-SC WY–Sweetwater Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area. 

 

Cirsium aridum Cedar Rim thistle BLM-S; 

WY-SC 

WY–Sublette, 

Sweetwater 

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area. 

Quad-level occurrences of this species 

intersect the study area in Wyoming. 

 

Cirsium ownbeyi Ownbey’s thistle BLM-S; 

WY-SC

UT–Uintah; 

WY–Sweetwater

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area. 

Quad-level occurrences of this species 

intersect the study area in Wyoming.

 

Cirsium 

perplexans 

Adobe thistle BLM-S CO–Garfield Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area. 

Quad-level occurrences are within 5 mi 

from the study area in Colorado. 

 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-196 

TABLE 6.1.4-4 (Cont.)

Scientific Name Common Name Statusa

States and Counties 

within the Study Area 

in Which Species 

May Occur Potential for Effectb

 

Plants (Cont.) 

Cleomella 

palmeriana var. 

goodrichii 

Goodrich cleomella BLM-S UT–Uintah Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Collomia 

grandiflora 

Large-flower 

collomia

WY-SC WY–Lincoln Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Cryptantha 

barnebyi 

Barneby’s cat’s-eye BLM-S UT–Uintah Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Cryptantha 

caespitosa 

Caespitose cat’seyeBLM-S CO–Rio Blanco; 

UT–Carbon, 

Duchesne, Uintah

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area. 

Quad-level occurrences of this species 

intersect the study area in Utah.

 

Cryptantha 

grahamii 

Graham’s cat’s-eye BLM-S UT–Uintah Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Cryptantha 

gracilis 

Slender cryptantha WY-SC WY–Sweetwater Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Cryptantha 

rollinsii 

Rollins’ cat’s eye BLM-S; 

WY-SC

CO–Rio Blanco; 

UT–Duchesne, 

San Raphael, Uintah, 

Wayne; 

WY–Sweetwater

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area. 

Quad-level occurrences of this species 

intersect the study areas in Colorado and 

Utah.

 

Cymopterus 

duchesnensis 

Uinta Basin springparsley

BLM-S CO–Rio Blanco; 

UT–Duchesne, 

Uintah

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area. 

Quad-level occurrences are within 4 mi 

from the study area in Utah. 

 

Descurainia 

pinnata var.

paysonii 

Payson’s tansy 

mustard

WY-SC WY–Sweetwater Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Descurainia 

torulosa 

Wyoming 

tansymustard

BLM-S; 

WY-SC

WY–Sweetwater Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area. 

Quad-level occurrences of this species 

intersect the study area in Wyoming.

 

Downingia laeta Great Basin 

downingia

WY-SC WY–Uinta Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Draba juniperina Uinta draba WY-SC WY–Sweetwater, 

Uinta

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-197 

TABLE 6.1.4-4 (Cont.)

Scientific Name Common Name Statusa

States and Counties 

within the Study Area 

in Which Species 

May Occur Potential for Effectb

 

Plants (Cont.) 

Elymus simplex 

var. luxurians 

Long-awned alkali 

wild-rye

WY-SC WY–Sweetwater Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area. 

Quad-level occurrences of this species 

intersect the study area in Wyoming.

 

Ephedra viridis 

var. viridis 

Green Mormon tea WY-SC WY–Sweetwater Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Eriastrum 

wilcoxii 

Wilcox eriastrum WY-SC WY–Sweetwater Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Erigeron 

compactus var.

consimilis 

San Rafael daisy WY-SC WY–Sweetwater Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Eriogonum 

contortum 

Grand buckwheat BLM-S CO–Garfield; 

UT–Grand

No impact. Suitable habitat for this 

species is not known to occur in the 

vicinity of any study areas. Nearest 

occurrences are approximately 20 mi 

from the study area in Colorado.

 

Eriogonum 

corymbosum var.

corymbosum 

Crisp-leaf wild 

buckwheat

WY-SC WY–Sweetwater Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Eriogonum 

divaricatum 

Divergent wild 

buckwheat

WY-SC WY–Lincoln, 

Sublette, Sweetwater, 

Uinta

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Eriogonum 

ephedroides 

Ephedra buckwheat BLM-S CO–Rio Blanco; 

UT–Uintah

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area. 

Quad-level occurrences of this species 

intersect the study area in Utah.

 

Eriogonum 

hookeri 

Hooker wild 

buckwheat

WY-SC WY–Sweetwater Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Frasera 

ackermanae 

Ackerman frasera BLM-S UT–Uintah Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Galium 

coloradoense 

Colorado bedstraw WY-SC WY–Sweetwater Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Gentianella 

tortuosa 

Utah gentian BLM-S CO–Rio Blanco; 

UT–Duchesne, 

Emery, Garfield, 

Uintah

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area. 

Quad-level occurrences of this species 

intersect the study area in Colorado.

 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-198 

TABLE 6.1.4-4 (Cont.)

Scientific Name Common Name Statusa

States and Counties 

within the Study Area 

in Which Species 

May Occur Potential for Effectb

 

Plants (Cont.) 

Gilia stenothyrsa Narrow-stem gilia BLM-S CO–Rio Blanco; 

UT–Carbon, 

Duchesne, Emery, 

Uintah

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

Quad-level occurrences of this species 

intersect the study area in Utah.

 

Glossopetalon 

spinescens var.

meionandrum 

Utah greasebush WY-SC WY–Sweetwater Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Hymenoxys 

lapidicola 

Rock hymenoxys BLM-S UT–Uintah Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Lathyrus 

lanszwertii var.

lanszwertii 

Nevada sweetpea WY-SC WY–Uinta Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Lepidium huberi Huber’s 

pepperplant 

BLM-S UT–Uintah Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Lepidium 

integrifolium var.

integrifolium 

Entire-leaved 

peppergrass

BLM-S; 

WY-SC

WY–Lincoln, Uinta No impact. Suitable habitat for this 

species is not known to occur in the 

vicinity of any study areas. Nearest 

occurrences are approximately 30 mi 

from the study area in Wyoming.

 

Lesquerella 

macrocarpa 

Large-fruited 

bladderpod

BLM-S; 

WY-SC

WY–Lincoln, 

Sublette, Sweetwater

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area. 

Quad-level occurrences are within 9 mi 

from the study area in Wyoming. 

 

Lesquerella 

multiceps 

Western 

bladderpod

BLM-S; 

WY-SC

WY–Lincoln Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Lesquerella 

parviflora 

Piceance 

bladderpod

BLM-S CO–Garfield, 

Rio Blanco

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area. 

Quad-level occurrences of this species 

intersect the study area in Colorado.

 

Lesquerella 

parvula 

Narrow-leaved 

bladderpod

WY-SC WY–Sweetwater, 

Uinta

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Lesquerella 

prostrata 

Prostrate 

bladderpod

WY-SC WY–Lincoln, Uinta No impact. Suitable habitat for this 

species is not known to occur in the 

vicinity of the WY study areas. Nearest 

occurrences are approximately 20 mi 

from the study area in Wyoming.

 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-199 

TABLE 6.1.4-4 (Cont.)

Scientific Name Common Name Statusa

States and Counties 

within the Study Area 

in Which Species 

May Occur Potential for Effectb

 

Plants (Cont.) 

Listera borealis Northern twayblade BLM-S CO–Garfield; 

UT–Duchesne, 

San Juan; 

WY–Sublette

No impact. Suitable habitat for this 

species is not known to occur in the 

vicinity of any study areas. Nearest 

occurrences are approximately 30 mi 

from the study area in Colorado.

 

Lomatium 

triternatum var.

anomalum 

Ternate desertparsleyWY-SC WY–Lincoln Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Mentzelia 

goodrichii 

Goodrich’s 

blazinstar 

BLM-S UT–Duchesne, 

Uintah 

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Mentzelia 

rhizomata 

Roan Cliffs 

blazingstar

BLM-S CO–Garfield Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area. 

Quad-level occurrences of this species 

intersect the study area in Colorado.

 

Minuartia 

nuttallii 

Nuttall sandwort BLM-S UT–Duchesne; 

WY–Lincoln, 

Sublette, Sweetwater, 

Uinta

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Monolepis pusilla Red poverty-weed WY-SC WY–Sweetwater Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Opuntia 

polyacantha var.

juniperina 

Juniper pricklypear

WY-SC WY–Sublette, 

Sweetwater

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Opuntia 

polyacantha var.

rufispina 

Rufous-spine 

prickly-pear

WY-SC WY–Lincoln, 

Sweetwater

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Oxytheca 

dendroidea 

Tree-like oxytheca WY-SC WY–Sweetwater Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Oxytropis besseyi 

var. obnapiformis 

Maybell locoweed WY-SC WY–Sweetwater, 

Uinta

No impact. Suitable habitat for this 

species is not known to occur in the 

vicinity of the Wyoming study areas. 

Nearest occurrences are approximately 

80 mi from the study area in Wyoming.

 

Packera crocata Saffron groundsel WY-SC WY–Sweetwater Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Parthenium 

ligulatum 

Ligulate feverfew BLM-S CO–Rio Blanco; 

UT–Wayne

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-200 

TABLE 6.1.4-4 (Cont.)

Scientific Name Common Name Statusa

States and Counties 

within the Study Area 

in Which Species 

May Occur Potential for Effectb

 

Plants (Cont.) 

Penstemon 

acaulis var.

acaulis 

Stemless 

beardtongue

BLM-S; 

WY-SC

WY–Sweetwater Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area. 

Quad-level occurrences of this species 

intersect the study area in Wyoming.

 

Penstemon 

gibbensii 

Gibbens’ 

beardtongue

BLM-S; 

WY-SC

WY–Sweetwater Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area. 

Quad-level occurrences are within 13 mi 

from the study area in Wyoming. 

 

Penstemon 

harringtonii 

Harrington 

beardtongue

BLM-S CO–Garfield No impact. Suitable habitat for this 

species is not known to occur in the 

vicinity of any study areas. Nearest 

occurrences are approximately 20 mi 

from the study area in Colorado.

 

Penstemon 

laricifolius ssp.

exilifolius 

White beardtongue WY-SC WY–Sublette Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Penstemon 

scariosus var.

albifluvis 

White River 

beardtongue

ESA-C; CO–Rio Blanco; 

UT–Uintah

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area. 

Quad-level occurrences of this species 

intersect the study area in Utah.

 

Penstemon 

scariosus var.

garrettii 

Garrett’s 

beardtongue

WY-SC WY–Sweetwater, 

Uinta

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Phacelia 

argylensis 

Argyle Canyon 

phacelia 

BLM-S UT–Uintah Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Phacelia demissa Intermountain 

phacelia

WY-SC WY–Sweetwater Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Phacelia 

glandulosa var.

deserta 

Desert glandular 

phacelia

WY-SC WY–Lincoln, 

Sublette, Sweetwater

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Phacelia incana Western phacelia WY-SC WY–Sweetwater Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Phacelia salina Nelson phacelia WY-SC WY–Lincoln, 

Sublette, Sweetwater, 

Uinta

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Phacelia 

tetramera 

Tiny phacelia WY-SC WY–Sweetwater Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-201 

TABLE 6.1.4-4 (Cont.)

Scientific Name Common Name Statusa

States and Counties 

within the Study Area 

in Which Species 

May Occur Potential for Effectb

 

Plants (Cont.) 

Philadelphus 

microphyllus var.

occidentalis 

Little-leaf mockorangeWY-SC WY–Sweetwater Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Phlox 

albomarginata 

White-margined 

phlox

WY-SC WY–Lincoln Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Phlox pungens Beaver Rim phlox BLM-S; 

WY-SC

WY–Lincoln, 

Sublette

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area. 

Quad-level occurrences of this species 

intersect the study area in Wyoming.

 

Physaria 

condensata 

Tufted twinpod BLM-S; 

WY-SC

WY–Lincoln, 

Sublette, Uinta

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area. 

Quad-level occurrences are within 7 mi 

from the study area in Wyoming. 

 

Physaria dornii Dorn’s twinpod BLM-S; 

WY-SC

WY–Lincoln, Uinta No impact. Suitable habitat for this 

species is not known to occur in the 

vicinity of any study areas. Nearest 

occurrences are approximately 25 mi 

from the study area in Wyoming.

 

Physocarpus 

alternans 

Dwarf ninebark WY-SC WY–Sweetwater Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Populus deltoides 

var. wislizeni 

Fremont 

cottonwood

WY-SC WY–Sweetwater Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Potentilla 

multisecta 

Deep Creek 

cinquefoil

WY-SC WY–Sweetwater, 

Uinta

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Psilocarphus 

brevissimus 

Dwarf woollyheadsWY-SC WY–Sublette Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Ranunculus 

flabellaris 

Yellow watercrowfootWY-SC WY–Uinta Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Rorippa calycina Persistent sepal 

yellowcress

BLM-S; 

WY-SC

WY–Sweetwater Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area. 

Quad-level occurrences are within 4 mi 

from the study area in Wyoming. 

 

Sambucus 

cerulea 

Blue elderberry WY-SC WY–Sweetwater Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Senecio 

spartioides var.

multicapitatus 

Many-headed 

broom groundsel

WY-SC WY–Sweetwater Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-202 

TABLE 6.1.4-4 (Cont.)

Scientific Name Common Name Statusa

States and Counties 

within the Study Area 

in Which Species 

May Occur Potential for Effectb

 

Plants (Cont.) 

Silene douglasii Douglas’ campion WY-SC WY–Lincoln Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Thelesperma 

caespitosum 

Green River 

greenthread

BLM-S; 

WY-SC

WY–Sweetwater Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area. 

Quad-level occurrences of this species 

intersect the study area in Wyoming.

 

Thelesperma 

pubescens 

Uinta greenthread BLM-S; 

WY-SC

WY–Sweetwater, 

Uinta

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area. 

Quad-level occurrences of this species 

intersect the study area in Wyoming.

 

Townsendia 

microcephala 

Cedar Mountain 

Easter-daisy

BLM-S; 

WY-SC

WY–Sweetwater, 

Uinta

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Townsendia 

strigosa 

Strigose EasterdaisyBLM-S UT–Duchesne, 

Uintah

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Yucca sterilis Spanish bayonet BLM-S UT–Uintah Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Invertebrates 

Speyeria nokomis 

nokomis 

Great Basin 

silverspot butterfly 

BLM-S UT–Duchesne, 

Uintah 

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area. 

 

Fish 

Catostomus 

discobolus

Bluehead sucker BLM-S; 

WY-SC 

CO–Garfield, 

Rio Blanco; 

UT–Carbon, 

Duchesne, Emery, 

Garfield, Grand, 

San Juan, Uintah; 

WY–Lincoln, 

Sublette, Sweetwater, 

Uinta 

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

Quad-level occurrences of this species 

intersect the study area in Utah.

 

Catostomus 

latipinnis 

Flannelmouth 

sucker 

BLM-S; 

WY-SC 

CO–Garfield, 

Rio Blanco; 

UT–Carbon, 

Duchesne, Emery, 

Garfield, Grand, 

San Juan, Uintah; 

Wayne; WY–Lincoln, 

Sublette, Sweetwater, 

Uinta 

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

Quad-level occurrences of this species 

intersect the study area in Utah.

 

 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-203 

TABLE 6.1.4-4 (Cont.)

Scientific Name Common Name Statusa

States and Counties 

within the Study Area 

in Which Species 

May Occur Potential for Effectb

 

Fish (Cont.) 

Catostomus 

platyrhynchus 

Mountain sucker BLM-S 

CO-SC 

CO–Garfield, 

Rio Blanca; 

UT–Carbon, 

Duchesne, Emery, 

Grand, Uintah; 

WY–Sweetwater, 

Uinta 

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Gila copei Leatherside chub BLM-S; 

UT-SC; 

WY-SC 

UT–Duchesne, 

Emery, Garfield, 

Wayne; WY–Lincoln, 

Uinta 

No impact. Suitable habitat for this 

species is not known to occur in the 

vicinity of any study areas. Nearest 

occurrences are approximately 70 mi 

from the study area in Utah.

 

Gila robusta Roundtail chub BLM-S; 

CO-SC; 

WY-SC 

CO–Garfield, 

Rio Blanco; 

UT–Carbon, 

Duchesne, Emery, 

Garfield, Grand, San 

Juan, Uintah, Wayne; 

WY–Lincoln, 

Sublette, Sweetwater, 

Uinta 

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

Quad-level occurrences of this species 

intersect the study area in Utah.

 

Oncorhynchus 

clarkii pleuriticus 

Colorado River 

cutthroat trout 

BLM-S; 

CO-SC; 

WY-SC 

CO–Garfield, 

Rio Blanco; 

UT–Duchesne, 

Garfield, Uintah, 

Wayne; WY–Lincoln, 

Sublette, Sweetwater, 

Uinta 

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

Quad-level occurrences of this species 

intersect the study area in Colorado.

 

Oncorhynchus 

clarkii utah 

Bonneville 

cutthroat trout 

BLM-S; 

WY-SC 

WY–Lincoln, Uinta No impact. Suitable habitat for this 

species is not known to occur in the 

vicinity of any study areas. Nearest 

occurrences are approximately 30 mi 

from the study area in Wyoming.

 

Amphibians 

Bufo boreas Boreal toad BLM-S; 

CO-E; 

UT-SC; 

WY-SC 

CO–Garfield, 

Rio Blanco; 

UT–Carbon, 

Duchesne, Emery, 

Garfield, Uintah, 

Wayne; WY–Lincoln, 

Sublette, Uinta 

Potential for negative impact.

Approximately 52,549 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area. This 

species is not known to occur in the 

vicinity of any study areas. Nearest 

occurrences are approximately 20 mi 

from the study area in Wyoming. 

 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-204 

TABLE 6.1.4-4 (Cont.)

Scientific Name Common Name Statusa

States and Counties 

within the Study Area 

in Which Species 

May Occur Potential for Effectb

 

Amphibians 

(Cont.) 

 

Rana luteiventris Columbia spotted 

frog 

BLM-S; 

WY-SC 

UT–Utah, Wasatch; 

WY–Lincoln, 

Sublette 

Potential for negative impact.

Approximately 114 acres of potentially 

suitable habitat for this species occurs in 

the study area. This species is not known 

to occur in the vicinity of any study 

areas. Nearest occurrences are 

approximately 40 mi from the study area 

in Wyoming. 

 

Rana pipiens Northern leopard 

frog 

BLM-S; 

CO-SC; 

WY-SC 

CO–Garfield, 

Rio Blanco; 

UT–Carbon, 

Duchesne, Emery, 

Garfield, Grand, 

San Juan, Uintah, 

Wayne; WY–Lincoln, 

Sublette, Sweetwater, 

Uinta 

Potential for negative impact.

Approximately 23,585 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area. Quadlevel occurrences of this species intersect 

the study area in Wyoming. 

 

Spea 

intermontana 

Great basin 

spadefoot 

BLM-S; 

WY-SC 

CO–Garfield, 

Rio Blanco; 

UT–Carbon, 

Duchesne, Emery, 

Garfield, Grand, 

San Juan, Uintah, 

Wayne; WY–Lincoln, 

Sweetwater, Uinta 

Potential for negative impact.

Approximately 1,516,213 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area. Quadlevel occurrences of this species intersect 

the study area in Colorado. 

 

Reptiles 

Charina bottae Northern rubber boa WY-SC WY–Lincoln, Uinta Potential for negative impact.

Potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area in 

Wyoming. 

 

Crotalus 

oreganus 

concolor 

Midget faded 

rattlesnake 

BLM-S; 

CO-SC 

CO–Garfield, 

Rio Blanco; 

WY–Sweetwater 

Potential for negative impact.

Approximately 316,932 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area. Quadlevel occurrences of this species intersect 

the study areas in Colorado and 

Wyoming. 

 

Gambelia 

wislizenii 

Longnose leopard 

lizard 

BLM-S; 

CO-SC 

CO–Garfield Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat for the species does not occur in 

the study area. Quad-level occurrences 

are within 4 mi from the study area in 

Utah. 

 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-205 

TABLE 6.1.4-4 (Cont.)

Scientific Name Common Name Statusa

States and Counties 

within the Study Area 

in Which Species 

May Occur Potential for Effectb

 

Reptiles (Cont.) 

Liochlorophis 

vernalis 

Smooth greensnake BLM-S; 

UT-SC 

UT–Carbon, 

Duchesne, Grand, 

San Juan, Uintah 

No impact. Suitable habitat for the 

species does not occur in the study area 

and it is not known to occur in the 

vicinity of the study area. Nearest 

occurrences are approximately 20 mi 

from the study area in Utah. 

 

Pituophis 

catenifer 

deserticola 

Great Basin 

gophersnake 

WY-SC WY–Lincoln, 

Sweetwater, Uinta 

Potential for negative impact.

Potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area in 

Wyoming. 

 

Urosaurus 

ornatus wright 

Northern tree lizard WY-SC WY–Sweetwater, 

Uinta 

Potential for negative impact.

Potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area in 

Wyoming. 

 

Birds 

Accipiter gentilis Northern goshawk BLM-S; 

WY-SC 

CO–Garfield, 

Rio Blanco; 

UT–Carbon, 

Duchesne, Emery, 

Garfield, Grand, 

San Juan, Uintah, 

Wayne; WY–Lincoln, 

Sublette, Sweetwater, 

Uinta 

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 1,126,934 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area. Quadlevel occurrences of this species intersect 

the study areas in Utah and Wyoming.

 

Aechmophorus 

clarkii 

Clark’s grebe WY-SC WY–Lincoln Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 1,295 acres of potentially 

suitable habitat for this species occurs in 

the study area.

 

Aegolius funereus Boreal owl WY-SC WY–Lincoln, Uinta No impact. Suitable habitat for the 

species does not occur in the study area 

and it is not known to occur in the 

vicinity of the study areas. Nearest 

occurrences are approximately 90 mi 

from the study area in Wyoming.

 

Ammodramus 

bairdii 

Baird’s sparrow BLM-S; 

WY-SC 

WY–Uinta Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 2,867,364 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area. Quadlevel occurrences of this species intersect 

the study area in Wyoming.

 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-206 

TABLE 6.1.4-4 (Cont.)

Scientific Name Common Name Statusa

States and Counties 

within the Study Area 

in Which Species 

May Occur Potential for Effectb

 

Birds (Cont.) 

Ammodramus 

savannarum 

Grasshopper 

sparrow 

UT-SC; 

WY-SC 

UT–Duchesne, 

Uintah, Utah, 

Wasatch; 

WY–Lincoln, 

Sweetwater, Uinta 

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 963,649 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area.

 

Aphelocoma 

californica 

Western scrub-jay WY-SC WY–Sweetwater Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 870,023 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area.

 

Asio flammeus Short-eared owl BLM-S; 

UT-SC; 

WY-SC 

UT–Carbon, 

Duchesne, Emery, 

Grand, Garfield, 

San Juan, Uintah, 

Wayne; WY–Lincoln, 

Sweetwater, Uinta 

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 967,791 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area. Quadlevel occurrences of this species intersect 

the study area in Utah.

 

Athene 

cunicularia 

Burrowing owl BLM-S; 

CO-T; 

UT-SC; 

WY-SC 

CO–Garfield, 

Rio Blanco; 

UT–Carbon, 

Duchesne, Emery, 

Garfield, Grand, 

San Juan, Uintah, 

Wayne; WY–Lincoln, 

Sublette, Sweetwater, 

Uinta 

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 1,558,515 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area. Quadlevel occurrences of this species intersect 

the study areas in Utah and Wyoming.

 

Baeolophus 

ridgwayi 

Juniper titmouse WY-SC WY–Sweetwater Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 619,731 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area.

 

Botaurus 

lentiginosus 

American bittern WY-SC WY–Lincoln, 

Sweetwater, Uinta 

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 816,435 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area.

 

Bucephala 

islandica 

Barrow’s 

goldeneye 

BLM-S CO–Garfield, 

Rio Blanco 

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 130,448 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area. Nearest 

occurrences are approximately 30 mi 

from the study area in Colorado.

 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-207 

TABLE 6.1.4-4 (Cont.)

Scientific Name Common Name Statusa

States and Counties 

within the Study Area 

in Which Species 

May Occur Potential for Effectb

 

Birds (Cont.) 

Buteo regalis Ferruginous hawk BLM-S; 

CO-SC; 

UT-SC; 

WY-SC 

CO–Garfield, 

Rio Blanco; 

UT–Carbon, 

Duchesne, Emery, 

Garfield, Grand, 

San Juan, Uintah, 

Wayne; WY–Lincoln, 

Sublette, Sweetwater, 

Uinta 

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 1,421,434 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area. Quadlevel occurrences of this species intersect 

the study areas in Utah and Wyoming.

 

Calcarius 

mccownii 

McCown’s 

longspur 

WY-SC WY–Sweetwater No impact. Suitable habitat for the 

species does not occur in the study area.

 

Charadrius 

montanus 

Mountain plover BLM-S; 

CO-SC; 

UT-SC; 

WY-SC 

CO–Rio Blanco; 

WY–Lincoln, 

Sublette, Sweetwater 

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 1,004,584 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area. Quadlevel occurrences of this species intersect 

the study areas in Utah and Wyoming.

 

Chlidonias niger Black tern WY-SC WY–Lincoln, 

Sweetwater, Uinta 

No impact. Suitable habitat for the 

species does not occur in the study area.

 

Coccyzus 

americanus 

occidentalis

Western yellowbilled cuckoo ESA-C; 

BLM-S; 

WY-SC 

UT–Duchesne, 

Garfield, Grand, 

San Juan, Uintah, 

Wayne 

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat does not occur in the study area. 

Quad-level occurrences are within 15 mi 

from the study area in Utah. 

 

Cygnus 

buccinator 

Trumpeter swan WY-SC WY–Lincoln, 

Sublette, Sweetwater 

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 217,257 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area. Quadlevel occurrences of this species intersect 

the study area in Wyoming.

 

Cypseloides niger Black swift BLM-S; 

CO-SC; 

UT-SC 

CO–Garfield, 

Rio Blanco; 

UT–Duchesne, 

Uintah

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 142 acres of potentially 

suitable habitat for this species occurs in 

the study area. Quad-level occurrences 

are within 12 mi from the study area in 

Colorado. 

 

Dolichonyx 

oryzivorus 

Bobolink BLM-S; 

UT-SC 

UT–Carbon, 

Duchesne, Emery, 

Garfield, Grand, 

San Juan, Uintah, 

Wayne 

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 92,701 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area. Quadlevel occurrences are within 12 mi from 

the study area in Utah. 

 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-208 

TABLE 6.1.4-4 (Cont.)

Scientific Name Common Name Statusa

States and Counties 

within the Study Area 

in Which Species 

May Occur Potential for Effectb

 

Birds (Cont.) 

Egretta thula Snowy egret WY-SC WY–Lincoln, 

Sublette, Sweetwater, 

Uinta 

Potential for negative impact. 

Potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area. 

 

Falco peregrinus 

anatum 

American peregrine 

falcon 

BLM-S; 

CO-SC 

CO–Garfield, 

Rio Blanco; 

WY–Sublette, 

Sweetwater 

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 1,861,185 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area. Quadlevel occurrences of this species intersect 

the study area in Wyoming.

 

Gavia immer Common loon WY-SC WY–Lincoln, 

Sublette, Sweetwater, 

Uinta 

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 5,665 acres of potentially 

suitable habitat for this species occurs in 

the study area.

 

Glaucidium 

gnoma 

Northern pygmyowl WY-SC WY–Lincoln, Uinta Potential for negative impact. 

Potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area. 

 

Grus canadensis 

tabida 

Greater sandhill 

crane 

CO-SC; 

WY-SC 

CO–Garfield, 

Rio Blanco; 

WY–Lincoln, 

Sweetwater, Uinta 

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 1,080,903 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area. Nearest 

occurrences are approximately 20 mi 

from the study area in Colorado.

 

Haliaeetus 

leucocephalus 

Bald eagle BLM-S; 

CO-T; 

WY-SC 

CO–Garfield, 

Rio Blanco; 

UT–Carbon, 

Duchesne, Emery, 

Garfield, Grand, 

San Juan, Uintah, 

Wayne; WY–Lincoln, 

Sublette, Sweetwater, 

Uinta 

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 2,255,105 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area. Quadlevel occurrences of this species intersect 

the study areas in Colorado, Utah, and 

Wyoming.

 

Icterus parisorum Scott’s oriole WY-SC WY–Sweetwater Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 235,902 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area.

 

Lanius 

ludovicianus 

Loggerhead shrike WY-SC WY–Lincoln, 

Sublette, Sweetwater, 

Uinta 

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 1,900,782 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area. Quadlevel occurrences of this species intersect 

the study area in Wyoming.

 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-209 

TABLE 6.1.4-4 (Cont.)

Scientific Name Common Name Statusa

States and Counties 

within the Study Area 

in Which Species 

May Occur Potential for Effectb

 

Birds (Cont.) 

Leucosticte atrata Black rosy-finch WY-SC WY–Sweetwater, 

Lincoln 

Potential for negative impact. 

Potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area.

 

Melanerpes lewis Lewis’s 

woodpecker 

BLM-S; 

UT-SC; 

WY-SC 

UT–Carbon, 

Duchesne, Emery, 

Garfield, Grand, 

San Juan, Uintah, 

Wayne; WY–Uinta 

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 120,954 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area. Quadlevel occurrences are within 11 mi from 

the study area in Utah. 

 

Myiarchus 

cinerascens 

Ash-throated 

flycatcher 

WY-SC WY–Lincoln, 

Sweetwater, Uinta 

Potential for negative impact. 

Potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area.

 

Numenius 

americanus 

Long-billed curlew BLM-S; 

CO-SC; 

UT-SC; 

WY-SC 

CO–Garfield, 

Rio Blanco; 

UT–Carbon, 

Duchesne, Emery, 

Garfield, Grand, 

San Juan, Uintah, 

Wayne; WY–Lincoln, 

Sublette, Sweetwater, 

Uinta 

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 981,868 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area. Quadlevel occurrences of this species intersect 

the study areas in Utah and Wyoming.

 

Nycticorax 

nycticorax 

Black-crowned 

night-heron 

WY-SC WY–Lincoln, 

Sweetwater, Uinta 

Potential for negative impact. 

Potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area.

 

Oreoscoptes 

montanus 

Sage thrasher BLM-S; 

WY-SC 

WY–Lincoln, 

Sublette, Sweetwater, 

Uinta 

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 1,743,889 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area. Quadlevel occurrences of this species intersect 

the study area in Wyoming.

 

Pelecanus 

erythrorhynchos 

American white 

pelican 

BLM-S; 

UT-SC 

CO–Garfield, 

UT–Carbon, 

Duchesne, Emery, 

Garfield, Grand, 

San Juan, Uintah, 

Wayne 

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 961,187 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area. Quadlevel occurrences of this species intersect 

the study area in Utah.

 

Picoides arcticus Black-backed 

woodpecker 

WY-SC WY–Lincoln No impact. Suitable habitat does not 

occur in the study area.

 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-210 

TABLE 6.1.4-4 (Cont.)

Scientific Name Common Name Statusa

States and Counties 

within the Study Area 

in Which Species 

May Occur Potential for Effectb

 

Birds (Cont.) 

Picoides 

tridactylus 

Three-toed 

woodpecker 

BLM-S; 

UT-SC 

UT–Carbon, 

Duchesne, Emery, 

Garfield, Grand, 

San Juan, Uintah, 

Wayne 

No impact. Suitable habitat does not 

exist in the study area.

 

Plegadis chihi White-faced ibis BLM-S; 

WY-SC 

CO–Garfield, 

Rio Blanco; 

WY–Lincoln, 

Sublette, Sweetwater, 

Uinta 

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 839,820 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area. Quadlevel occurrences of this species intersect 

the study areas in Colorado and 

Wyoming.

 

Psaltriparus 

minimus 

Bushtit WY-SC WY–Sweetwater, 

Uinta

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 1,200,334 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area.

 

Rallus limicola Virginia rail WY-SC WY–Lincoln, 

Sublette, Sweetwater, 

Uinta 

Potential for negative impact. 

Potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area.

 

Sitta pygmaea Pygmy nuthatch WY-SC WY–Lincoln, 

Sublette

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 463,435 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area.

 

Sphyrapicus 

thyroideus 

Williamson’s 

sapsucker

WY-SC WY–Lincoln, 

Sublette, Sweetwater, 

Uinta

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 14,219 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area.

 

Spizella breweri Brewer’s sparrow BLM-S; 

WY-SC

WY–Lincoln, 

Sublette, Sweetwater, 

Uinta

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 1,636,812 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area. Quadlevel occurrences of this species intersect 

the study area in Wyoming.

 

Sterna caspia Caspian tern WY-SC WY–Lincoln Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 4,868 acres of potentially 

suitable habitat for this species occurs in 

the study area.

 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-211 

TABLE 6.1.4-4 (Cont.)

Scientific Name Common Name Statusa

States and Counties 

within the Study Area 

in Which Species 

May Occur Potential for Effectb

 

Birds (Cont.) 

Sterna forsteri Forster’s tern WY-SC WY–Lincoln Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 270,802 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area.

 

Tympanuchus 

phasianellus 

columbianus 

Columbian sharptailed grouseBLM-S; 

CO-SC

CO–Garfield, 

Rio Blanco

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat does not occur in the study area. 

Quad-level occurrences are within 5 mi 

from the study area in Colorado. 

 

Mammals 

Antrozous 

pallidus 

Pallid bat WY-SC WY–Sweetwater Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 972,787 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area.

 

Brachylagus 

idahoensis 

Pygmy rabbit BLM-S; 

UT-SC; 

WY-SC

UT–Garfield, Wayne; 

WY–Lincoln, 

Sublette, Sweetwater, 

Uinta

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 961,657 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area. Quadlevel occurrences of this species intersect 

the study area in Wyoming.

 

Corynorhinus 

townsendii 

pallescens 

Townsend’s bigeared batBLM-S; 

CO-SC; 

UT-SC; 

WY-SC

CO–Garfield, 

Rio Blanco; 

UT–Carbon, 

Duchesne, Emery, 

Garfield, Grand, 

San Juan, Uintah, 

Wayne; 

WY–Sweetwater

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 948,519 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area. Quadlevel occurrences are within 7 mi from 

the study area in Utah. 

 

Cynomys 

leucurus 

White-tailed prairie 

dog

BLM-S; 

UT-SC; 

WY-SC

UT–Carbon, 

Duchesne, Emery, 

Grand, Uintah; 

WY–Lincoln, 

Sublette, Sweetwater, 

Uinta

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 1,491,163 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area. Quadlevel occurrences of this species intersect 

the study areas in Utah and Wyoming.

 

Euderma 

maculatum 

Spotted bat BLM-S; 

UT-SC; 

WY-SC

CO–Garfield, 

Rio Blanco; 

UT–Duchesne, 

Garfield, Grand, 

San Juan, Uintah, 

Wayne; 

WY–Sweetwater

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 739,333 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area. Quadlevel occurrences are within 10 mi from 

the study area in Utah. 

 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-212 

TABLE 6.1.4-4 (Cont.)

Scientific Name Common Name Statusa

States and Counties 

within the Study Area 

in Which Species 

May Occur Potential for Effectb

 

Mammals (Cont.) 

Glaucomys 

sabrinus 

Northern flying 

squirrel 

WY-SC WY–Lincoln, 

Sublette, Sweetwater, 

Uinta 

Potential for negative impact. 

Potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area.

 

Gulo gulo Wolverine CO-E; 

WY-SC

CO–Garfield, 

Rio Blanco; 

WY–Lincoln, 

Sublette

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 569 acres of potentially 

suitable habitat for this species occurs in 

the study area. Quad-level occurrences 

are within 6 mi from the study areas in 

Colorado and Wyoming. 

 

Lasiurus 

blossevillii 

Western red bat BLM-S; 

UT-SC

UT–Carbon, Emery, 

Grand, Garfield, 

San Juan, Wayne

No impact. Suitable habitat for the 

species does not occur in the study area 

and it is not known to occur in the 

vicinity of the study area. Nearest 

occurrences are approximately 40 mi 

from the study area in Utah.

 

Lontra 

Canadensis 

River otter WY-SC WY–Lincoln, 

Sublette, Sweetwater, 

Uinta 

Potential for negative impact. 

Potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area.

 

Martes 

Americana 

American marten WY-SC WY–Lincoln, 

Sublette, Sweetwater, 

Uinta 

Potential for negative impact. 

Potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area.

 

Myotis 

ciliolabrum 

Western smallfooted bat WY-SC WY–Lincoln, 

Sublette, Sweetwater, 

Uinta 

Potential for negative impact. 

Potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area.

 

Microtus 

richardsoni 

Water vole WY-SC WY–Lincoln, 

Sublette, Uinta

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 9,622 acres of potentially 

suitable habitat for this species occurs in 

the study area.

 

Myotis evotis Long-eared myotis BLM-S; 

WY-SC

WY–Lincoln, 

Sublette, Sweetwater, 

Uinta

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 1,203,082 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area. Quadlevel occurrences of this species intersect 

the study area in Wyoming.

 

 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-213 

TABLE 6.1.4-4 (Cont.)

Scientific Name Common Name Statusa

States and Counties 

within the Study Area 

in Which Species 

May Occur Potential for Effectb

 

Mammals (Cont.) 

Myotis 

thysanodes 

Fringed myotis BLM-S; 

UT-SC; 

WY-SC

CO–Garfield, 

Rio Blanco; 

UT–Duchesne, 

Garfield, Grand, 

San Juan, Uintah, 

Wayne; WY–Sublette

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 917,064 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area. Quadlevel occurrences of this species intersect 

the study area in Utah.

 

Myotis volans Myotis volans WY-SC WY–Lincoln, 

Sublette, Sweetwater, 

Uinta 

Potential for negative impact. 

Potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area.

 

Nyctinomops 

macrotis 

Big free-tailed bat BLM-S; 

UT-SC

CO–Garfield; 

UT–Carbon, 

Duchesne, Emery, 

Garfield, Grand, 

San Juan, Uintah, 

Wayne

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 819,509 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area. Quadlevel occurrences of this species intersect 

the study area in Utah.

 

Ovis canadensis Bighorn sheep WY-SC WY–Lincoln, 

Sublette, Sweetwater 

Potential for negative impact. 

Potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area.

 

Peromyscus 

crinitus 

Canyon mouse WY-SC WY–Sweetwater Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 311,609 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area.

 

Peromyscus truei Pinon mouse WY-SC WY–Sweetwater Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 828,049 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area.

 

Sorex nanus Dwarf shrew WY-SC WY–Lincoln, 

Sublette, Sweetwater, 

Uinta 

Potential for negative impact. 

Potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area.

 

Sorex preblei Preble’s shrew WY-SC WY–Lincoln, Uinta No impact. Suitable habitat for the 

species does not occur in the study area.

 

Tamias dorsalis 

utahensis 

Cliff chipmunk WY-SC WY–Sweetwater Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 588,560 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area.

 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-214 

TABLE 6.1.4-4 (Cont.)

Scientific Name Common Name Statusa

States and Counties 

within the Study Area 

in Which Species 

May Occur Potential for Effectb

 

Mammals (Cont.) 

Thomomys 

clusius 

Wyoming pocket 

gopher

BLM-S WY–Sweetwater Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 85,442 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area. Quadlevel occurrences of this species intersect 

the study area in Wyoming.

 

Thomomys 

idahoensis 

Idaho pocket 

gopher

BLM-S; 

WY-SC

WY–Lincoln, 

Sublette, Uinta

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 133,494 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area. Quadlevel occurrences of this species intersect 

the study area in Wyoming.

 

Vulpes macrotis Kit fox BLM-S; 

CO-E; 

UT-SC

CO–Garfield, 

Rio Blanco; 

UT–Carbon, 

Duchesne, Emery, 

Garfield, Grand, 

San Juan, Uintah, 

Wayne

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat for the species may occur in the 

study area. Quad-level occurrences are 

within 8 mi from the study area in 

Colorado. 

 

Vulpes velox Swift fox BLM-S; 

WY-SC

WY–Sweetwater Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 11,970 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area. Nearest 

occurrences are approximately 50 mi 

from the study area in Wyoming.

a Status categories: BLM-S = listed by the BLM as sensitive; CO-E = listed as endangered by the State of Colorado; 

CO-SC = species of special concern in the state of Colorado; CO-T = listed as threatened by the State of Colorado; 

ESA-C = candidate for listing under the ESA; UT-SC = species of special concern in the state of Utah; WY-SC = species 

of special concern in the state of Wyoming.

b Potential impacts are based upon the presence of potentially suitable habitat or recorded occurrences in the vicinity of the 

Alternative 4 footprint (i.e., study area). Recorded occurrences were obtained as USGS quad-level or township range-level 

element occurrence records from state natural heritage program offices (CNHP 2011; UDWR 2011; WYNDD 2011a). If 

available for terrestrial vertebrates, SWReGAP animal habitat suitability models (USGS 2007) and terrestrial vertebrate 

distribution models for the state of Wyoming (WYNDD 2011b) were used to determine the presence of potentially 

suitable habitat in the Alternative 4 footprint (i.e., study area).

 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-215 

TABLE 6.1.4-5 Potential Effects of Commercial Oil Shale Development under Alternative 4 on 

Federally Listed Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Species 

Scientific Name Common Name Statusa

States and Counties 

within the Study 

Area in Which 

Species May Occur Potential for Effectb

 

Plants 

Lepidium 

barnebyanum 

Barneby ridge-cress ESA-E UT–Duchesne Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area. 

Quad-level occurrences are within 11 mi 

from the study area in Utah. 

 

Lesquerella 

congesta 

Dudley Bluffs 

bladderpod 

ESA-T CO–Rio Blanco Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area. 

Quad-level occurrences of this species 

intersect the study area in Colorado. 

 

Penstemon 

debilis 

Parachute 

beardtongue 

ESA-T CO–Garfield Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area. 

Quad-level occurrences are within 5 mi 

from the study area in Colorado. 

 

Penstemon 

grahamii 

Graham’s 

beardtongue 

ESA-PT; 

BLM; 

CO–Rio Blanco; 

UT–Duchesne, 

Uintah 

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area. 

Quad-level occurrences of this species 

intersect the study area in Utah. 

 

Phacelia 

argillacea 

Clay phacelia ESA-E; UT–Utah, Wasatch No impact. Suitable habitat for this 

species is not known to occur in the 

vicinity of any study areas. Nearest 

occurrences are approximately 40 mi 

from the study area in Utah.

 

Phacelia 

scopulina var.

submutica 

Debeque phacelia ESA-T CO–Garfield Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area. 

Quad-level occurrences are within 5 mi 

from the study area in Colorado. 

 

Physaria 

obcordata 

Dudley Bluffs 

twinpod

ESA-T CO–Rio Blanco Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area. 

Quad-level occurrences of this species 

intersect the study area in Utah.

 

Schoenocrambe 

argillacea 

Clay reed-mustard ESA-T UT–Uintah Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area. 

Quad-level occurrences of this species 

intersect the study area in Colorado.

 

Schoenocrambe 

suffrutescens 

Shrubby reedmustardESA-E UT–Duchesne, 

Uintah

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area. 

Quad-level occurrences of this species 

intersect the study area in Utah.

 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-216 

TABLE 6.1.4-5 (Cont.)

Scientific Name Common Name Statusa

States and Counties 

within the Study 

Area in Which 

Species May Occur Potential for Effectb

 

Plants (Cont.) 

Sclerocactus 

brevispinus 

Pariette cactus ESA-T UT–Duchesne, 

Uintah

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area. 

Quad-level occurrences of this species 

intersect the study area in Utah.

 

Sclerocactus 

glaucus 

Colorado hookless 

cactus

ESA-T CO–Garfield Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area. 

Quad-level occurrences are within 5 mi 

from the study area in Colorado. 

 

Sclerocactus 

wetlandicus 

Uinta Basin 

hookless cactus 

ESA-T UT–Carbon, 

Duchesne, Uintah 

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area. 

Quad-level occurrences of this species 

intersect the study area in Utah.

 

Spiranthes 

diluvialis 

Ute ladies’-tresses ESA-T UT–Duchesne, 

Garfield, Uintah, 

Wayne

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area. 

Quad-level occurrences are within 13 mi 

from the study area in Utah. 

 

Fish 

Gila cypha Humpback chub ESA-E; 

CO-T 

UT–Carbon, Emery, 

Garfield, Grand, 

San Juan, Uintah, 

Wayne 

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

Quad-level occurrences of this species 

intersect the study area in Utah.

 

Gila elegans Bonytail ESA-E UT–Carbon, 

Duchesne, Emery, 

Garfield, Grand, 

San Juan, Uintah, 

Wayne 

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

Quad-level occurrences of this species 

intersect the study area in Utah.

 

Ptychocheilus 

lucius 

Colorado 

pikeminnow 

ESA-E; 

CO-T 

CO–Rio Blanco; 

UT–Carbon, 

Duchesne, Emery, 

Garfield, Grand, 

San Juan, Uintah, 

Wayne 

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

Quad-level occurrences of this species 

intersect the study areas in Utah and 

Colorado

 

Rhinichthys 

osculus thermalis 

Kendall Warm 

Springs dace 

ESA-E WY–Sublette No impact. Suitable habitat for this 

species is not known to occur in the 

vicinity of any study areas. Nearest 

occurrences are approximately 60 mi 

from the study area in Wyoming.

 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-217 

TABLE 6.1.4-5 (Cont.)

Scientific Name Common Name Statusa

States and Counties 

within the Study 

Area in Which 

Species May Occur Potential for Effectb

 

Fish (Cont.) 

Xyrauchen 

texanus 

Razorback sucker ESA-E; 

CO-E 

CO–Garfield, 

Rio Blanco; 

UT–Carbon, Emery 

Garfield, Grand, 

San Juan, Uintah, 

Wayne 

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

Quad-level occurrences of this species 

intersect the study areas in Utah and 

Colorado

 

Birds 

Grus americana Whooping crane ESA-XN; 

CO-E 

CO–Garfield, 

Rio Blanco 

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat for the species does not occur in 

the study area. Quad-level occurrences of 

this species intersect the study area in 

Wyoming.

 

Empidonax 

traillii extimus 

Southwestern 

willow flycatcher 

ESA-E UT–Carbon, Emery, 

Garfield, Grand, 

San Juan, Uintah, 

Wayne 

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 870,948 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area.

 

Strix occidentalis 

lucida 

Mexican spotted 

owl 

ESA-T UT–Emery, Garfield, 

Grand, San Juan, 

Uintah, Wayne 

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 22,062 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area. This 

species is not known to occur in the 

vicinity of any study areas. Nearest 

occurrences are approximately 100 mi 

from the study area in Utah.

 

Mammals 

Lynx canadensis Canada lynx ESA-T; 

CO-E; 

WY-SC 

CO–Garfield, 

Rio Blanco; 

UT–Emery, Uintah; 

WY Lincoln, 

Sublette, Uinta 

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 1,167 acres of potentially 

suitable habitat for this species occurs in 

the study area. Quad-level occurrences of 

this species intersect the study area in 

Wyoming.

 

Mustela nigripes Black-footed ferret ESA-XN; 

CO-E 

CO–Rio Blanco; 

UT–Carbon, 

Duchesne, Emery, 

Grand, San Juan, 

Uintah; 

WY–Sublette, 

Sweetwater 

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 133,223 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the study area. Quadlevel occurrences of this species intersect 

the study areas in Utah and Wyoming.

a Status categories: BLM-S = listed by the BLM as sensitive; CO-E = listed as endangered by the State of Colorado; 

CO-T = listed as threatened by the State of Colorado; ESA-E = listed as endangered under the ESA; ESA-PT = proposed 

for listing as a threatened species under the ESA; ESA-T = listed as threatened under the ESA; ESA-XN = experimental, 

nonessential population; WY-SC = species of special concern in the state of Wyoming. 

Footnotes continued on next page. 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-218 

TABLE 6.1.4-5 (Cont.)

b Potential impacts are based upon the presence of potentially suitable habitat or recorded occurrences in the vicinity of the 

Alternative 4 footprint (i.e., study area). Recorded occurrences were obtained as USGS quad-level or township range-level 

element occurrence records from state natural heritage program offices (CNHP 2011; UDWR 2011; WYNDD 2011a). If 

available for terrestrial vertebrates, SWReGAP animal habitat suitability models (USGS 2007) and terrestrial vertebrate 

distribution models for the state of Wyoming (WYNDD 2011b) were used to determine the presence of potentially 

suitable habitat in the Alternative 4 footprint (i.e.., study area). Spatial data for designated critical habitat were obtained

from the USFWS Critical Habitat Portal (USFWS 2011). 

details of project development. These impacts would be evaluated in detail in project-specific 

assessments and consultations conducted prior to leasing and development. 

6.1.4.8 Visual Resources 

 The lands that would remain available for application for leasing under Alternative 4 

support a wide variety of visual resources (Section 3.8). These resources would not be affected 

by the amendment of land use plans or by the identification of these lands as available for 

application for commercial leasing. Visual resources in and around these potential lease areas, 

however, could be affected by subsequent commercial development of oil shale. 

 Two scenic resource areas are located in Utah within the area that would be available for 

application for commercial leasing under Alternative 4. Specifically, these areas include Fantasy 

Canyon and White River SRMAs. 

 Scenic resource areas are also located within 5 or 15 mi of the areas that would be made 

available for application for commercial leasing under Alternative 4 (Figures 6.1.4-6 [Colorado], 

6.1.4-7 [Utah], and 6.1.4-8 [Wyoming]). These 5- and 15-mi zones correspond to the BLM’s 

VRM foreground-middleground and background distance limits, respectively. Based on the 

assumption of an unobstructed view of a commercial oil shale project, viewers in these areas 

would be likely to perceive some level of visual impact from a commercial oil shale project; 

impacts are expected to be greater for resources within the foreground-middleground distance 

and lesser for those areas within the background distance. Beyond the background distance, the 

project might be visible but would likely occupy a very small visual angle and create low levels 

of visual contrast such that impacts would be expected to be minor to negligible. Table 6.1.4-6 

presents the scenic resource areas that would fall within these zones under Alternative 4. 

 Visual resources could be affected at and near the Alternative 4 potential lease areas 

where commercial oil shale projects are developed and operated, and at areas where supporting 

infrastructure (e.g., plants and utility and pipeline ROWs) would be located. Visual resources 

could be affected by ROW clearing, project construction, and operation (see Section 4.9.1). 

Potential impacts would be associated with construction equipment and activity, cleared project 

areas, and the type and visibility of individual project components such as shale-processing 

facilities, utility ROWs, and surface mines. The nature, magnitude, and extent of project-related 

impacts would depend on the type, location, and design of the individual project components.
Final OSTS PEIS 6-219 

FIGURE 6.1.4-4 Designated Critical Habitats of Threatened and Endangered Species That Are 

near Lands Available for Application for Leasing for Oil Shale under Alternative 4 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-220 

FIGURE 6.1.4-5 Distribution of Core and Priority Habitat Areas and Lek Sites for Greater 

Sage-Grouse That Are near Lands Available for Application for Leasing for Oil Shale under 

Alternative 4 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-221 

FIGURE 6.1.4-6 Scenic Resource Areas within the 5- and 15-mi Zones around the Lands 

Available for Application for Leasing under Alternative 4 in Colorado 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-222 

FIGURE 6.1.4-7 Scenic Resource Areas within the 5- and 15-mi Zones around the Lands 

Available for Application for Leasing under Alternative 4 in Utah 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-223 

FIGURE 6.1.4-8 Scenic Resource Areas within the 5- and 15-mi Zones around the Lands 

Available for Application for Leasing under Alternative 4 in Wyoming 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-224 

TABLE 6.1.4-6 Visually Sensitive Areas That Could Be Affected by Commercial Oil Shale Projects 

Developed in the Alternative 4 Lease Areas 

Location 

Scenic Resources within 5 mi of 

Alternative 4 Lease Areas 

Scenic Resources between 5 and 15 mi of 

Alternative 4 Lease Areas 

 

Colorado Deer Gulch, Duck Creek, Dudley Bluffs, East 

Douglas Creek, East Douglas Creek/South 

Cathedral Bluffs Addition, East Fork Parachute 

Creek, Lower Greasewood Creek, Magpie 

Gulch, Ryan Gulch, South Cathedral Bluffs 

Addition, South Cathedral Bluffs/South 

Cathedral Bluffs Addition, Trapper Creek, 

Trapper Creek/Northwater Creek, Upper 

Greasewood Creek, White River Riparian, and 

Yanks Gulch ACECs; segments of East Fork 

Parachute Creek, Trapper Creek, and Northwater 

Creek determined to be eligible for WSR 

designation; and Black Mountain WSA. 

Anvil Points, Blacks Gulch, Coal Draw, Coal 

Oil Rim, East Douglas Creek, East Fork 

Parachute Creek, Lower Colorado River, 

Magpie Gulch, Pyramid Rock RNA, and White 

River Riparian ACECs; Dinosaur Diamond 

Prehistoric Scenic Highway; segments of East 

Fork Parachute Creek determined to be eligible 

for WSR designation; and Black Mountain and 

Windy Gulch WSAs. 

 

Utah Lower Green River Corridor, Nine Mile, Oil 

Spring Mountain, Pariette, Raven Ridge, Raven 

Ridge Addition, Raven Ridge/Raven Ridge 

Addition, and White River Riparian ACECs; Oil 

Spring Mountain, Winter Ridge, and Desolation 

Canyon WSAs; Nine Mile SRMA; Lower Green 

River W&SR; Dinosaur Diamond Prehistoric 

National Scenic Highway and Nine Mile Canyon 

Backway. 

Book Cliffs Mountain Browse ISA, Bull 

Canyon, Desolation Canyon, Jack Canyon, Oil 

Spring Mountain, Willow Creek, and Winter 

Ridge WSAs; Coal Oil Rim, Moosehead 

Mountain, Nine Mile, Oil Spring Mountain, 

Raven Ridge, Raven Ridge Addition, and White 

River Riparian ACECs; Lower Green River 

W&SR; Blue Mountain, Nine Mile, and Pelican 

Lake SRMAs; Ouray NWR; Dinosaur National 

Monument, managed by the NPS; and Dinosaur 

Diamond Prehistoric National Scenic Highway 

and Nine Mile Canyon Backway. 

 

Wyoming Greater Red Creek, Greater Sand Dunes, Hells 

Canyon, Pine Springs, Special Status Plant 

Species, White Mountain Petroglyphs ACECs; 

Expedition Island NHL; California, Mormon 

Pioneer, Oregon, and Pony Express National 

Historic Trails; Seedskadee NWR; Bridger 

Valley Historic Byway and Flaming Gorge – 

Green River Basin Scenic Byway; and Adobe 

Town, Buffalo Hump, Devils Playground/Twin 

Buttes, and Sand Dunes WSAs. 

Ace in the Hole, Browns Park, Cedar Canyon, 

Greater Red Creek, Greater Sand Dunes, Horse 

Draw, Irish Canyon, Limestone Ridge, Lookout 

Mountain, Red Creek, Special Status Plant 

Species, Steamboat Mountain, and Vermillion 

Bluffs ACECs; California, Mormon Pioneer, 

Oregon, and Pony Express National Historic 

Trails; Upper Green River Wild & Scenic 

River; Bridger Valley Historic Byway, Flaming 

Gorge – Green River Basin Scenic Byway, 

Flaming Gorge-Uintas National Scenic Byway, 

and Muddy Creek Historic Backway; and 

Adobe Town, Red Creek Badlands, Sand 

Dunes, and West Cold Spring WSAs. 

 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-225 

6.1.4.9 Cultural Resources 

 Under Alternative 4, the amendment of land use plans to identify 1,968,079 acres of 

public land as remaining available for commercial oil shale development would not result in 

impacts on cultural resources. Existing ACECs, some of which have been identified for their 

cultural values, including about 7,300 acres in Wyoming (the West Sand Dunes Archaeological 

District), will not be made available for application for leasing under this alternative, and 

therefore the cultural resources present in these areas would not be directly impacted under this 

alternative. The remaining lands made available for application for leasing overlap with some 

lands identified as having cultural resources present. Of the public lands that would remain 

available for application for leasing under Alternative 4, approximately 36% in the Piceance 

Basin, approximately 35% in the Uinta Basin, and approximately 8% in the Green River and 

Washakie Basins have been surveyed for cultural resources. In these areas that have been 

surveyed, more than 8,000 sites have been identified. Additional resources are likely in 

unsurveyed portions of the study area. On the basis of a sensitivity analysis conducted for the 

Class I Cultural Resources Overview (O’Rourke et al. 2012), 203,590 acres (60%) of the 

Piceance Basin, 397,749 acres (60%) of the Uinta Basin, and 843,997 acres (87%) of the Green 

River and Washakie Basins Alternative 4 footprints have been identified as having a medium or 

high sensitivity for containing cultural resources. 

 Impacts on cultural resources within these areas would be considered if leasing and future 

commercial development occur. Leasing itself has the potential to have an impact on cultural 

resources to the extent that the terms of the lease limit an agency’s ability to avoid, minimize, or 

mitigate adverse effects of proposed development on cultural properties. Impacts of development 

could include the destruction of individual resources present within development footprints, 

degradation and/or destruction of near-surface resources in or near the development area, 

increased potential of loss of resources from looting or vandalism as a result of increased 

human presence/activity in the sensitive areas, and visual degradation of cultural setting 

(see Section 4.10). Any future leasing and subsequent development would be subject to 

compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA as well as all other pertinent laws, regulations, and 

policies. Compliance with these laws would result in measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate 

impacts to cultural resources, or to denial of the lease or project. 

6.1.4.10 Indian Tribal Concerns 

Under Alternative 4, a total of 1,968,079 acres would remain available for application for 

commercial lease. Alternative 4 differs from Alternative 1 only in the exclusion of the whole of 

Adobe Town, all ACECs analyzed in the 2008 OSTS PEIS, and additional ACEC acreages 

resulting from recently completed BLM planning efforts in Utah and Wyoming. As with 

Alternative 1, making parcels available for application for commercial leasing will not in and of 

itself have adverse effects on traditional properties and other resources of concern to Native 

Americans, but the leasing and development of the parcels would increase the likelihood that 

such impacts would be considered during the leasing and developing stage. Because somewhat 

less land would be available for commercial leasing, it is likely that fewer traditional properties 

and other resources important to Native Americans would be affected. However, the reduction in 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-226 

impact would not be precisely proportional to the reduction in acreage, because the nature and 

scope of impacts from development depend on the location of the development facility and the 

steps taken to mitigate impacts. Compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA as well as NEPA 

analyses, consultation with interested tribes, and other laws, regulations, and policies are 

important steps in avoiding, minimizing, or mitigating adverse effects on tribally significant 

resources. This is particularly true for the split estate lands in the Uintah and Ouray Reservation 

Hill Creek extension where the tribe owns the surface estate and the federal government the 

subsurface estate. Specific lease stipulations developed in consultation with affected tribes could 

reduce the impacts on resources that would be affected by the development of specific parcels. 

6.1.4.11 Socioeconomics 

 Socioeconomic and transportation impacts associated with Alternative 4 would be 

dependent on the exact locations of future development; the types of impacts that could occur 

would be the same as those described in Section 4.12 and summarized in Section 6.1.1.11 for 

Alternative 1. The specific impacts would be dependent upon the technologies employed, the 

project size or production level, development time lines, mitigation measures, and the location of 

employee housing. 

 Under Alternative 4, it is possible that there will be property value impacts simply from 

designating land as available or not available for application for leasing; these impacts could 

result in either decreased or increased property values (see Section 4.12.1.6). 

6.1.4.12 Environmental Justice 

 Under Alternative 4, a total of 1,963,414 acres of public land in Colorado, Utah, and 

Wyoming would remain identified as available for application for leasing for commercial 

development of oil shale. Data in Table 3.12-1 show the minority and low-income composition 

of total population located in the designated oil shale development areas and associated 50-mi 

buffers in the three states (based on 2010 Census data and CEQ Guidelines). 

 Although the environmental justice impacts of Alternative 4 would be dependent on the 

exact locations of specific developments, the types of impacts that could occur as a result of 

development on lands identified as available for application for leasing under Alternative 4 

would be the same as those described in Section 4.13 and summarized in Section 6.1.1.12. 

6.1.4.13 Hazardous Materials and Waste Management 

 The amendment of land use plans under Alternative 4 to identify 1,968,079 acres of land 

as available for application for leasing for commercial oil shale development would not result in 

any hazardous material or waste management concerns. Impacts related to hazardous materials 

and wastes could occur during future development of commercial oil shale projects within the 

areas identified in Alternative 4 as available for application for commercial leasing. Such 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-227 

impacts are generally independent of location and would be unique to the technology 

combinations used for oil shale development. However, impacts of hazardous materials and 

wastes are similar for some of the ancillary support activities that would be required for 

development of any oil shale facility regardless of the technology used. These include the 

impacts from development or expansions of support facilities, such as employer-provided 

housing and power plants. 

 Hazardous materials and wastes would be used and generated during both the 

construction and operation of commercial oil shale facilities and supporting infrastructure 

(e.g., power plants). Hazardous materials impacts associated with project construction would be 

minimal and limited to the hazardous materials typically utilized in construction, such as fuels, 

lubricating oils, hydraulic fluids, glycol-based coolants and solvents, adhesives, and corrosion 

control coatings. Construction-related wastes could include landscape wastes from clearing and 

grading of the construction sites, and other wastes typically associated with construction, none of 

which are expected to be hazardous (Section 4.14.1). 

 During project operations, hazardous materials would be utilized, and a variety of wastes 

(some hazardous) would be generated. Hazardous materials would include fuels, solvents, 

corrosion-control coatings, flammable fuel gases, and herbicides (for vegetation clearing and 

management at facilities or along ROWs). The types and amounts of hazardous waste generated 

during operations will depend on the specific design of the commercial oil shale project (surface 

or subsurface mining, surface retorting, and in situ processes). Waste materials produced during 

operations may include spent shale, waste engine fuels and lubricants, pyrolysis water, 

flammable gases, volatile and flammable organic liquids, and heavier-molecular-weight organic 

compounds (Section 4.14.1). 

 Because the use of hazardous materials and the generation of wastes are directly related 

to the specific design of a commercial oil shale project, it is not possible to quantify projectrelated impacts of these materials. Under Alternative 4, individual facilities could be located 

anywhere within the area identified as available for leasing pending project review and 

authorization. Accidental releases of the hazardous materials or wastes could affect natural 

resources (such as water quality or wildlife) and human health and safety (see Sections 4.15 

and 6.1.4.14) at locations where the individual projects are sited within the Alternative 4 lease 

areas. 

6.1.4.14 Health and Safety 

 The amendment of land use plans to identify 1,968,079 acres of land as available for 

application for leasing for commercial oil shale development would not result in any direct 

health and safety concerns. However, a number of health and safety concerns would be 

associated with the commercial development of oil shale projects within the areas in 

Alternative 4 identified as available for application for commercial leasing. For commercial oil 

shale development in Alternative 4, potential health and safety impacts from the construction and 

operation of commercial oil shale projects would be associated with the following activities: 

(1) constructing project facilities and associated infrastructure, (2) mining (if processing is not 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-228 

in situ) the oil shale; (3) obtaining and upgrading the crude oil, either through surface retorting or 

in situ processing; (4) transporting construction and raw materials to the upgrading facility and 

transporting product from the facility; and (5) exposing the general public to water and air 

contamination associated with oil shale development. Hazards from oil shale development 

(summarized in Table 4.15-1) could include physical injury from construction, oil shale 

processing, and vehicle transportation accidents and exposure to fugitive dust and hazardous 

materials, such as retort emissions and industrial chemicals (Section 4.15). Health and safety 

impacts would be largely restricted to the immediate workforce of each facility. Accidents could 

also affect members of the general public who could be present in the immediate vicinity of an 

accident (e.g., project-related truck accident on a public road, recreational users in areas adjacent 

to the project lease area). 

 Hazards for workers at oil shale development facilities include risks of accidental injuries 

or fatalities, lung disease caused by inhalation of particulates and other hazardous substances, 

and hearing loss. Estimates of expected injuries and fatalities can be made on the basis of 

numbers of employees and the type of work. Based on the numbers of employees projected to be 

needed for construction and operation of oil shale facilities, statistically there would be less than 

1 death and about 125 injuries per year expected per facility during construction activities, and 

less than 1 death and less than 100 injuries per year expected per facility during operations 

(NSC 2006). As a measure to decrease worker injuries, a comprehensive facility health and 

safety plan and worker safety training could be recommended to be included in the plans of 

development for proposed commercial oil shale projects. 

 Health and safety concerns are largely independent of the location of oil shale 

development facilities. However, the health and safety impacts on the general public from 

emissions from these facilities would depend both on the specific characteristics and level of 

emissions and on the distance of the emissions source from population centers. The level of air 

and water emissions would be regulated under required permits. Potential impacts on the general 

public from emissions would be assessed in future site-specific NEPA and permitting 

documentation. 

6.1.5 Comparison of Oil Shale Alternatives 

 Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative, maintains current land use allocations from the 

2008 PEIS and ROD, which allow commercial oil shale leasing on 2,017,741 acres of BLMadministered lands, subject to additional NEPA analysis and subject to other land use plan 

decisions that affect lands within the areas designated for leasing (e.g., designated ACECs). No 

other lands within the study area are currently designated for commercial oil shale leasing. The 

development and operation of the RD&D leases are common to all the alternatives being 

considered. By the terms of the existing RD&D leases, the operations could convert to 

commercial facilities. Within the Piceance Basin, this conversion could lead to a relatively dense 

development complex of up to 26,880 acres, which could dramatically affect existing land uses 

within the area. This conversion and the associated impacts of commercial operation on the 

expanded PRLA lands would be common to all alternatives. 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-229 

 The three action alternatives—Alternatives 2 (Conservation Focus), 3 (Research Lands 

Focus), and 4 (Moderate Development)—would amend up to eight BLM land use plans in 

Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming to (1) designate lands within the most geologically prospective 

areas as available or not available for application for leasing and (2) identify any technology 

restrictions. These alternatives are described in detail in Sections 2.3.3, 2.3.3.1, 2.3.3.2, and 

2.3.3.3; specific land use plan amendments to implement Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 are provided in 

Appendix C. The analyses of potential impacts associated with each alternative are presented in 

Sections 6.1.1, 6.1.2, 6.1.3, and 6.1.4 of this chapter. 

 As noted in the preceding impact analysis sections for Alternatives 1 through 4, with the 

exception noted in the socioeconomic analysis regarding potential impacts on land values, these 

land use plan amendments would not result in any impacts on the environment or socioeconomic 

setting. However, the future development of commercial oil shale projects that could be 

approved after subsequent NEPA analysis identified in both of these alternatives would have 

impacts on these resources. The types of impacts that could be associated with future commercial 

oil shale development are described in Chapter 4. The magnitude of the impacts cannot be 

quantified at this time because key information about the location of commercial projects, the 

technologies that may be employed, the project size or production level, development time lines, 

and mitigations is unknown. 

6.1.5.1 Land Use 

 Under Alternative 1, a total of 2,017,741 acres are potentially available for oil shale 

leasing. Approved extraction methods could include surface and underground mining and in situ 

processes. Commercial leases issued subsequent to the existing land use plans would have the 

same impacts as described in Chapter 4 of the PEIS. 

 Decisions implementing any of the three action alternatives, or any combination of any 

elements thereof, or of the No Action Alternative, would neither grant rights to third parties nor 

approve any ground-disturbing activities; however, the intent of these alternatives is to create a 

program that will facilitate future leasing and development of oil shale resources. The future 

development of commercial oil shale projects that could be approved after subsequent NEPA 

analysis identified in both alternatives would have the same impacts as those described in 

Chapter 4. Note that none of the alternatives impose either a minimum level or a cap on the level 

of development that may occur; that is, they only identify the areas available for potential 

commercial leasing (where “commercial” includes RD&D as well) and development. 

 Table 6.1.5-1 summarizes the acreages available for potential development by alternative. 

 The following is a summary of the principal differences in potential impact on land uses 

among Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4: 

• Alternative 1 includes about 88,234 acres of land identified as LWC, and most 

of these lands could be available for application for commercial oil shale 

development. Alternatives 2 and 3 do not include any LWC, while 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-230 

TABLE 6.1.5-1 Acreages Available for Potential 

Development under Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4 

 

Acreages Available 

Alternative Total Colorado Utah Wyoming 

 

1 2,017,741 346,609 670,558 1,000,574 

2 676,967 26,259 357,409 293,299 

3 32,640 26,880 5,760 0 

4 1,968,079 340,147 660,486 967,446 

Alternative 4 nominally contains about the same number of acres as 

Alternative 1. Alternative 2 specifically removes from consideration for future 

leasing lands with sensitive resources that have been identified in BLM land 

use plans (Table 2.3.3-2), sage grouse core habitat, all lands identified as 

LWC, and all existing ACECs. Alternative 1 removes only ACECs closed to 

mineral entry from consideration for leasing. Alternative 4 impacts are similar 

to those from Alternative 1, but Alternative 4 removes all existing ACECs, the 

portion of the Adobe Town Very Rare or Uncommon Area within the most 

geologically prospective area, and an undetermined percentage of the LWC 

and sage-grouse core habitat area. It is possible that Alternative 4 would have 

less impact than Alternative 1 on the latter resources, although it is assumed 

that the implementation of Alternative 1 will be subject to the same nationallevel policies regarding protection of sage-grouse core habitat and 

decisionmaking on LWC lands as Alternative 4, reducing the potential 

difference in impacts between the alternatives to the removal of the Adobe 

Town area and all ACECs from Alternative 4. 

• In the Piceance Basin, Alternative 3 would have the least impact on oil and 

gas development than the other alternatives because considerably fewer acres 

of potentially valuable oil and gas deposits are available for application for 

commercial oil shale development. Alternative 2 would have the secondlowest level of impact on oil and gas resources. The impacts of Alternatives 1 

and 4 would be essentially the same within the Piceance Basin. 

• The potential development area within the Piceance Basin in Colorado is 

much smaller under Alternatives 2 and 3 than under either Alternatives 1 or 4, 

which are very similar to one another. However, because of the presence of 

the seven existing RD&D leases and the associated PRLAs in near proximity 

to each other, there could be an intensive area of oil shale development within 

the Piceance Basin under all four alternatives. 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-231 

• Overall, Alternatives 2 and 3 would have much less potential impact on 

designated ACECs, LWC, and sage-grouse core or priority habitat than would 

Alternative 1 and on the latter two resouces than would Alternative 4. 

• The number of acres of wild horse and burro HMAs present in the oil shale 

lease areas for each alternative are as follows: 657,256 for Alternative 1, 

228,819 for Alternative 2, 328 for Alternative 3, and 644,603 for 

Alternative 4. 

6.1.5.2 Soil and Geologic Resources 

 The types of impacts on soil and geologic resources would be the same under all four 

alternatives; these impacts would be associated with soil removal and compaction, subsurface 

disturbance of geologic resources during drilling and mining activities, and increased potential 

for erosion of exposed soils and geologic materials. 

 The designation of public lands under Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4 as available for 

commercial oil shale leasing and the associated amendment of appropriate land use plans would 

not affect soils or geologic resources in any of the lease areas. Soil and geologic resources, 

however, could be affected by future development of commercial oil shale projects in these areas 

under each alternative. Potential impacts, related primarily to construction and operation of 

project facilities and related infrastructure, could include soil disturbance, removal or 

compaction, and erosion. 

 Although the types of impacts on soil and geologic resources would be the same for 

similar projects under each alternative, the total amount of soil and geologic resources would 

vary because the acreage associated with each alternative is different (Table 6.1.5-2). For 

example, under Alternative 3, soil and geologic resources could be affected by commercial 

development on only 32,640 acres, which is far less than the area that could be affected by 

commercial development under Alternatives 1 (2,017,741 acres), 2 (676,967 acres), or 4 

(1,968,079 acres). The nature, location, and magnitude of project-related impacts on soil and 

geologic resources would depend on the specific location of leases undergoing commercial 

development as well as the design of the projects. 

6.1.5.3 Paleontological Resources 

 Under all the oil shale alternatives, there is a high potential to encounter stratigraphic 

units that contain significant paleontological resources. Although the types of impacts on 

paleontological resources would be the same for similar projects under each alternative, the total 

amount of resources potentially affected would vary because the acreage associated with each 

alternative is different and because fossils are not uniformly distributed within a particular 

formation. For example, the largest area affected would be under Alternative 1, where the 

footprints of future oil shale development, covering a total of 2,017,741 acres, overlie a total of 

1,784,765 acres (335,113 acres in Colorado, 592,620 acres in Utah, and 857,032 acres in 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-232 

TABLE 6.1.5-2 Available Acreage Overlying Geologic 

Formations with High Potential to Contain Important 

Paleontological Resources by Oil Shale Alternative 

 

Total Acreage Overlying 

Formations with High Potential 

Alternative 

Total Development 

Acreage Colorado Utah Wyoming 

 

1 2,017,741 335,113 592,620 857,032 

2 676,967 246,732 316,308 262,495 

3 32,640a 26,605 5,780 0 

4 1,968,079 329,550 587,850 839,040 

a Acreage for eight existing and one potential new RD&D leases that 

would be available for oil shale leasing under Alternative 3. 

Wyoming) of geologic formations having a high potential to contain important paleontological 

resources. This is followed by Alternative 4, covering a total of 1,968,079 acres, where 

development footprints overlie a total of 1,756,440 acres (329,550 acres in Colorado, 

587,850 acres in Utah, and 839,040 acres in Wyoming) of geologic formations having a high 

potential to contain important paleontological resources. Most of the available acreage overlying 

high potential geologic formations occurs in Wyoming (Table 6.1.5-2). 

 Impacts from oil shale development 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 (Section 4.4). These impacts 

could be avoided or minimized by applying mitigation measures during project development. 

Such measures include on-site monitoring by qualified paleontologists to determine whether 

important paleontological resources are present and to collect data from any such resources 

uncovered during project activities. Therefore, most of the potential adverse effects on 

paleontological resources are expected to be mitigated. 

6.1.5.4 Water Resources 

 Under Alternative 1, surface disturbance could lead to increased erosion and possible 

contribution to sedimentation of local streams, runoff from saline soils, and soils contaminated 

by industrial processes and activities (see Section 6.1.1.2). In a comparison of the length of 

streams intercepted by the different alternatives (Table 6.1.5-3), Alternatives 1 and 4 have the 

most mileage intercepted, while Alternative 3 has by far the least mileage intercepted. The 

Alternative 2 scenario would create impacts approximately mid-range relative to impacts created 

by the other alternatives. Therefore, depending on the location of specific projects, the impacts 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-233 

TABLE 6.1.5-3 Perennial Stream Miles within the Four Oil Shale Basins 

 

Perennial Stream Miles 

 

Total 

Perennial 

Stream 

Miles 

Alternative 1 

 

Alternative 2 

 

Alternative 3 

 

Alternative 4 

Basin 

No. of 

Miles 

% of 

Total 

 

No. of 

Miles 

% of 

Total 

 

No. of 

Miles 

% of 

Total 

 

No. of 

Miles 

% of 

Total 

 

Piceance 199 184 92 97 49 23 11 183 92 

Uinta 262 262 100 253 97 5 2 262 100 

Green 253 190 75 67 27 0 0 179 71 

Washakie 39 39 100 24 62 0 0 39 100 

 

Total 753 674 90 441 59 28 4 662 88 

on water resources by soil erosion could be highest in Alternatives 1 and 4 and lowest in 

Alternative 3. Water impacts for the RD&D sites would be the same for all alternatives. 

 Some of the lands excluded under Alternative 2 are designated for protection by the BLM 

because of steep slopes and/or fragile or highly erosive soils, which could contribute to adverse 

effects on water quality if disturbed. The exclusion of these soil areas from potential 

development may reduce impacts on water quality under Alternative 2. Groundwater would be 

impacted under the alternatives in terms of use, dewatering, and contamination. For all three 

alternatives, the impacts would depend on the degree of development, the technologies, and sitespecific factors. 

 Table 6.1.5-3 is a tabulation of perennial stream miles in within the four oil shale basins. 

Cumulatively, Alternatives 1 and 4 contain approximately 90% of the perennial stream miles in 

the four basins and, depending upon the location of any future developments, would expose more 

stream segments to both direct and indirect disturbance. Even under Alternative 3, however, if 

development occurs on available lands in proximity to streams, there could be indirect effects on 

the streams as described previously. Impacts on water resources would ultimately be determined 

by the site location and the technology employed. The gross number of acres available for 

application, and even the number of stream miles included within the area available for 

application for leasing, is less important from a water resource standpoint than the actual location 

of the development and the source of water to support development. 

 Water requirements to support oil shale development are still unknown, but it is known 

that general water availability has become more constrained, and not merely from a legal 

appropriation standpoint. There is the likelihood that senior water rights could be purchased to 

either support future oil shale development and/or obtain water in a specific location. Access to 

water supplies, with respect to locations near perennial streams where water rights could be 

acquired, could be greater in Alternatives 1 and 4 because of the greater number of perennial 

stream miles present within the potential leasing area. This could be offset in Alternatives 2 and 

3 by an ability to transfer water in other ways. 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-234 

6.1.5.5 Air Quality 

 Previous analyses (summarized in Appendix A, Section A.5.3 [BLM 2006a–h, 2007a,b]) 

indicated that no significant, adverse direct or cumulative air quality impacts are likely to occur 

from the six ongoing RD&D projects. Thus, the RD&D projects (nine RD&D leases in total, 

including eight current and one potential new RD&D lease) are expected to have no significant 

air quality impacts under any of the four alternatives. 

 Under Alternative 3, a total of 32,640 acres of land in Colorado and in Utah would be 

allocated for potential commercial oil shale development. No air quality impacts are associated 

with this land use designation. Impacts could result, however, from post-lease construction and 

operation as described in Section 4.6. These impacts would be considered in project-specific 

NEPA analyses that would be conducted at the lease (including conversion from any RD&D to a 

commercial lease) and development phases of projects. 

 The identification of areas available for application for leasing for commercial oil shale 

development and the associated amendment of appropriate land use plans would similarly not 

affect air quality under Alternatives 1, 2, or 4. However, under these alternatives, local and 

regional air quality and AQRVs could be affected by the future construction and operation of 

commercial oil shale projects in the areas available for application for leasing and by 

construction and operation of off-lease infrastructures, such as electric power plants, if needed. 

Under Alternatives 1, 2, and 4, the potential future commercial development of a project in an 

area where these alternatives overlap would be expected to have similar local and regional 

impacts on air quality and AQRVs. 

 Different acreages are identified under Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4 as available for 

application for leasing. About 2,000,000 acres of public lands would be available for oil shale 

development under Alternatives 1 and 4, and about 50,000 acres fewer under Alternative 4 than 

under Alternative 1. About 680,000 acres of public lands would be available for oil shale 

development under Alternative 2, which is about one-third of those under Alternatives 1 or 4. 

Local air quality could be affected by commercial development in more locations under 

Alternative 1 (followed by Alternative 4) than under Alternatives 2 or 3. Many of the lands that 

would be open for application for leasing under Alternatives 1 and 4 would be excluded from 

application for leasing for commercial oil shale development under Alternatives 2 or 3. 

However, because of the need for project- and site-specific information, it is not possible to 

identify the nature and magnitude of regional air quality and AQRVs impacts of commercial oil 

shale development under all four alternatives. Thus, it is not possible to differentiate among these 

alternatives regarding regional air quality and AQRVs impacts. 

6.1.5.6 Noise 

 There are no noise impacts associated with the designation of lands as available for 

application for oil shale development. Impacts on noise levels would be comparable under all 

four alternatives for any future similar commercial projects located in areas common to the 

alternatives (i.e., in areas where these alternatives overlap). Because of the difference in the 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-235 

acreages identified under all four alternatives as available for application for leasing, local noise 

levels could be affected by commercial development at more locations under Alternative 1 

(followed by Alternative 4) than under Alternatives 2 or 3. However, because of the need for 

project- and site-specific information, it is not possible to identify the nature and magnitude of 

noise impacts of commercial oil shale development under Alternatives 1, 2, 3, or 4. Thus, it is 

not possible to differentiate among these alternatives regarding noise impacts. 

6.1.5.7 Ecological Resources 

 6.1.5.7.1 Aquatic Resources. No impacts on aquatic resources are associated with 

identifying lands as available for application for commercial leasing. Impacts could result, 

however, from post-lease construction and operation as described in Section 4.8.1.1. These 

impacts would be considered in project-specific NEPA analyses that would be conducted at the 

commercial lease and development phases of projects. The types of impacts on aquatic resources 

associated with construction and operations would be similar for all alternatives. Differences 

among alternatives exist in the amount of land that would be made available for application for 

leasing and the location of potential lease areas. As a consequence, there are differences among 

alternatives relative to the amount of aquatic habitat that is immediately within or adjacent to the 

footprint of the allocation areas and in the amount of such habitat within a 2-mi zone surrounding 

the allocation areas. These differences are described in this section. 

 Of the four oil shale allocation alternatives, the least amount of land would be available 

for application for leasing under Alternative 3 (32,640 acres), an intermediate amount under 

Alternative 2 (676,967 acres), even more under Alternative 4 (1,968,079), and the most under the 

No Action Alternative, Alternative 1 (2,017,741 acres). However, Alternatives 1 and 4 would 

open some areas for consideration for leasing for which lease stipulations have been established 

in existing RMPs, while these areas would be excluded from consideration for oil shale 

development leasing under Alternative 2. Because of these differences, aquatic habitat within 

prospective lease areas or within a 2-mi zone surrounding those areas differs among the 

alternatives and the relative impacts of the various alternatives are different for the various oil 

shale basins. 

 As shown in Table 6.1.1-4, Alternative 3 would affect the smallest amount of aquatic 

habitat, while Alternative 1 would affect the greatest amount of aquatic habitat. There would be 

no oil shale leasing on BLM-administered lands in Wyoming under Alternative 3, and therefore 

no impacts on aquatic habitats within the Green River and Washakie Basins. Alternative 3 would 

also not directly impact aquatic habitat in the Piceance or Uinta Basins, although several 

perennial streams are present within 2 mi of the area available for leasing. In the Piceance Basin, 

Alternative 1 and Alternative 4 would affect about 183 mi of perennial stream habitat (within a 

2-mi zone surrounding the allocation area), compared with about 97 mi of perennial stream 

habitat for Alternative 2 and 23 mi under Alternative 3. In the Uinta Basin, Alternative 1 and 

Alternative 4 would affect about 261 mi of perennial stream habitat (within a 2-mi zone 

surrounding the allocation area), followed by about 253 mi of perennial stream habitat for 

Alternative 2 and 5 mi for Alternative 3. In the Green River Basin, Alternative 1 would affect 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-236 

about 190 mi of perennial stream habitat (within a 2-mi zone surrounding the allocation area), 

compared with about 179 mi of perennial stream habitat under Alternative 4 and about 67 mi of 

perennial stream habitat under Alternative 2. In the Washakie Basin, Alternative 1 and 

Alternative 4 would affect about 39 mi of perennial stream habitat (within a 2-mi zone 

surrounding the allocation area), compared with about 24 mi of perennial stream habitat under 

Alternative 2. 

 6.1.5.7.2 Plant Communities and Habitats. There would be no impacts on plant 

communities and habitats associated with identifying lands as available for application for 

commercial leasing. Impacts could result, however, from post-lease construction and operation 

as described in Section 4.8.1.2. These impacts would be considered in greater detail in projectspecific NEPA analyses that would be conducted at the commercial lease and development 

phases of projects. 

 The types of impacts associated with construction and operations would be similar for all 

alternatives. For similar projects located in areas common to the alternatives (i.e., in areas where 

land available for development overlaps), impacts on plant communities and habitats would be 

identical among Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4. Impacts on plant communities and habitats would 

occur at each of the RD&D project locations as a result of construction and operation activities 

under each of the alternatives. Differences among alternatives exist in the amount of land that 

would be made available for application for leasing and the location of potential lease areas. 

These differences are described in this section. 

 Alternative 1 identifies 2,017,741 acres as available for application for commercial 

leasing. Included in this acreage are more than 167,000 acres of land that have been identified in 

land use plans for the protection of wetlands, riparian habitats, and floodplains, special status and 

sensitive plant species, and remnant vegetation associations (Table 6.1.5-4). About 313,906 acres 

of land identified under Alternative 1 would be excluded from availability for leasing under 

Alternative 2. Commercial oil shale development would be restricted to only 26,259 acres in 

Colorado, 357,409 acres in Utah, and 293,299 acres in Wyoming (676,967 total acres, including 

13,227 acres identified for protection of riparian habitats, floodplains, and special status plant 

species) under Alternative 2. Alternative 3 identifies 32,640 acres as available for application for 

commercial leasing in the Piceance and Uinta Basins. Included in this acreage is 39 acres of land 

that has been identified in land use plans for the protection of sensitive plant species and remnant 

vegetation associations. Alternative 4 identifies 1,968,079 acres as available for application for 

leasing, including 152,344 acres identified for protection of wetlands, riparian habitats, 

floodplains, special status and sensitive plant species, and remnant vegetation associations. 

 Because of the difference in the amount of land area identified under the different 

alternatives as available for application for leasing, plant communities and habitats could be 

affected by commercial development at more locations under Alternative 1 than under 

Alternatives 2, 3, or 4. Oil shale endemic plant species occur on oil shale outcrops within the 

available lease areas identified under each of the alternatives. Because Alternative 1 includes 

more land area in the vicinity of oil shale outcrops than the other alternatives, there is a greater 

potential for impacts on oil shale endemic species under Alternative 1. Alternative 3 includes the 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-237 

TABLE 6.1.5-4 Acreage of Lands in Which Plant Communities and 

Habitats Could Be Impacted by Future Commercial Oil Shale 

Development 

Location 

Land Area (acres) 

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 

 

Land Area Available for Leasing 

Colorado 346,609 26,259 26,880 340,147 

Utah 670,558 357,409 5,760 660,486 

Wyoming 1,000,574 293,299 0 967,446 

 

Total 2,017,741 676,967 32,640 1,968,079 

Land Area Identified for Protection of Wetlands, Riparian Habitats, 

Floodplains, Special Status and Sensitive Plant Species, and Remnant 

Vegetation Associations 

Colorado 54,983 0 39 48,258 

Utah 33,918 13,227 0 25,959 

Wyoming 78,899 0 0 78,127 

 

Total 167,800 13,227 39 152,344 

least land area in the vicinity of oil shale outcrops in the Uinta Basin, while Alternative 2 

includes the least land area in the vicinity of oil shale outcrops in the Piceance Basin. There is 

therefore less potential for impacts on oil shale endemic species under Alternative 3 in the Uinta 

Basin and under Alternative 2 in the Piceance Basin. 

 Many ACECs located within or near the most geologically prospective oil shale areas 

include rare plant species and/or rare or important plant communities. Under Alternative 1, eight 

such ACECs are partially or entirely included within the footprint of lands available for 

application for leasing (Table 6.1.5-5). Direct and/or indirect impacts could occur within these 

ACECs, although stipulations addressing sensitive resources apply to many of these areas. 

Thirteen additional ACECs are located adjacent to or near (within 5 mi) the Alternative 1 

footprint and could be impacted indirectly; impacts would generally decrease with increasing 

distance. Twenty ACECs are located adjacent to or near the Alternative 2 footprint; three ACECs 

are located adjacent to or near the Alternative 3 footprint; and 21 ACECs are located adjacent to 

or near the Alternative 4 footprint. Sensitive plant species or communities within these ACECs 

could be impacted indirectly. 

 6.1.5.7.3 Wildlife. There would be no impacts on wildlife species associated with 

identifying lands as available for application for commercial oil shale leasing. Impacts could 

result, however, from post-lease construction and operation as described in Section 4.8.1.3. 

These impacts would be considered in greater detail in project-specific NEPA analyses that 

would be conducted at the commercial lease and development phases of projects. The types of 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-238 

TABLE 6.1.5-5 ACECs with Sensitive Plant Species and/or Sensitive Plant Communities 

in or near Lands Available for Lease Application under the Oil Shale Alternatives 

Distance from Footprint (mi) 

ACEC Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 

 

Piceance Basin 

Upper Greasewood Creek 1.0 3.5 >5 1.0

Lower Greasewood Creek 3.1 4.9 >5 3.1 

East Douglas Creek 2.5 4.4 >5 2.7 

Magpie Gulch 3.4 3.8 >5 3.3 

Deer Gulch 0.5 1.8 >5 0.4 

Duck Creek Within Adjacent 0.8 Adjacent 

White River Riparian 2.7 3.5 >5 2.7 

Yanks Gulch 3.6 >5 >5 3.6 

South Cathedral Bluffs 3.1 4.4 >5 3.1 

Dudley Bluffs Within 0.6 1.3 Adjacent 

Ryan Gulch Within 1.3 1.0 Adjacent 

Trapper Creek/Northwater Creek Adjacent 1.3 >5 Adjacent 

East Fork Parachute Creek Within 4.9 >5 Adjacent 

 

Washakie Basin 

Special Status Plant Species 0.9 2.2 >5 0.9 

Hells Canyon 2.9 3.2 >5 2.9 

 

Green River Basin 

Special Status Plant Species Within 0.5 >5 Adjacent 

Greater Red Creek Within 3.9 >5 Adjacent 

 

Uinta Basin 

Raven Ridge 2.2 4.9 >5 2.2 

White River Riparian 0.6 0.8 >5 0.6 

Oil Spring Mountain 4.4 4.4 >5 4.4 

Pariette Wetlands Within Adjacent >5 Adjacent 

Lower Green River Within Adjacent >5 Adjacent 

Nine Mile Canyon Adjacent 2.7 >5 Adjacent 

impacts on wildlife species associated with construction and operation would be similar for all 

alternatives. Differences among alternatives exist in the amount of land that would be made 

available for application for commercial leasing and the location of areas protected from leasing. 

These differences are described in this section. 

 Impacts on wildlife and their habitats (see Section 4.1.8.3) would be identical under all 

four alternatives for similar projects located in areas common to the alternatives (i.e., in areas 

where land available for development overlap). Because of the difference in the acreages 

identified under the alternatives as available for application for leasing, wildlife and their habitats 

could be affected by subsequent commercial development at more locations under Alternative 1 

than under the other three alternatives. Alternative 1 identifies 2,017,741 acres as available for 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-239 

application for leasing, Alternative 2 identifies 676,967 acres as available for application for 

leasing; Alternative 3 identifies 32,640 acres as available for application for leasing; and 

Alternative 4 identifies 1,968,079 acres as available for application for leasing. Wildlife and their 

habitats in these areas could be impacted by the construction and operation of commercial oil 

shale projects. 

 Table 6.1.5-6 shows the comparison among the four alternatives in the amount of wildlife 

habitat identified for protection by stipulations identified in BLM RMPs. 

 Table 6.1.5-7 shows the acreage of state-identified mule deer and elk habitat present in 

the oil shale lease areas identified under the four alternatives. 

 6.1.5.7.4 Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species. No impacts on threatened 

and endangered species are associated with amending land use plans to identify lands as 

available for application for commercial leasing. Impacts could result, however, from post-lease 

construction and operation as described in Section 4.8.1.4. These impacts would be considered in 

project-specific NEPA analyses and ESA consultations that would be conducted at the lease and 

development phases of projects. The types of potential impacts on threatened and endangered 

species associated with construction and operations would be similar for all alternatives. 

Differences among alternatives exist in the amount of lands that would be made available for 

application and the location of potential lease areas. These differences are described in this 

section. 

 Of the four alternatives under consideration, the least amount of land available for 

application for commercial leasing would be under Alternative 3 (32,640 acres); an intermediate 

amount under Alternative 2 (676,967 acres); and the most amount under Alternatives 1 and 4 

(2,017,741 acres and 1,968,079 acres, respectively). The difference in acreages results in a 

potential difference in the number of threatened and endangered species that could occur under 

the various alternatives. 

 There are 193, 179, 42, and 181 federal candidate, BLM-designated sensitive, and statelisted species that potentially occur in areas that are available for application for oil shale under 

Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively. There are 21, 19, 9, and 21 federally listed species that 

potentially occur in areas that are available for tar sands leasing under Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4, 

respectively (Table 6.1.5.8). 

 Alternatives differ in the amount of critical habitat for Colorado River endangered fishes 

that are contained within areas available for application for commercial leasing. There are 

approximately 99 mi of critical habitat for Colorado River endangered fishes associated with 

Alternatives 1 and 4; there are no critical habitats associated with Alternatives 2 and 3 

(Table 6.1.5-8). The amount of core and priority habitats for the greater sage-grouse also differs 

by alternative. The greatest amount of core and priority habitat for the greater sage-grouse is 

associated with Alternatives 1 and 4 (714,462 acres and 710,512 acres, respectively); an 

intermediate amount is associated with Alternative 2 (120,690 acres); and the least amount is 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-240 

TABLE 6.1.5-6 Wildlife Habitat Protected by Stipulations in BLM RMPs within the 

Alternative 1, 2, 3, and 4 Oil Shale Lease Areas 

 

Area of Habitat (acres) 

Habitat Description Alternative 1a Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4a

 

Birds 

 Raptor nesting areas 106,092 0 0 103,719 

 Raptor nesting and fledging habitat 59 0 0 59 

 Raptor concentration areas 10,043 0 0 10,036 

 

Big Game 

 Big game severe winter range 89,310 0 78 83,134 

 Big game winter range 24 0 0 24 

 Big game 30 0 0 30 

 Elk crucial winter range 136,991 0 0 126,828 

 Elk calving 13,493 0 0 12,092 

 Elk and mule deer summer range 163,100 0 483 162,099 

 Mule deer crucial winter range 110,671 0 0 110,513 

 Mule deer winter range 83,237 0 0 60,871 

 Mule deer fawning area 29,334 0 0 20,984 

 Mule deer migration corridor 5,021 0 0 5,021 

 Moose winter range 11 0 0 11 

 Pronghorn crucial winter range 10,600 0 0 10,486 

 Pronghorn winter range 241,673 0 0 237,866 

 

Other 

 Wildlife seclusion above the rim 81 0 0 70 

 Wildlife seclusion areas 11 0 0 11 

a Acreage may be overestimated because of unknown degree of habitat overlap among species or 

habitat types for a species. For these reasons, columns should not be totaled. 

TABLE 6.1.5-7 State-Identified Elk and Mule Deer Habitat Present in the 

Oil Shale Lease Areas Identified under Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4 

Area of Habitat (acres) 

Habitat 

Description Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 

 

Mule Deer 

Winter habitat 861,159 227,466 1,456 822,796 

Summer habitat 172,773 19,588 483 171,852 

 

Elk 

Winter habitat 850,442 235,346 1,456 814,162

Summer habitat 172,542 19,565 483 171,633
Final OSTS PEIS 6-241 

TABLE 6.1.5-8 Threatened and Endangered Species and Selected Habitats Present in Potential 

Lease Sale Areas That Could Be Affected by Future Commercial Oil Shale Development 

Resource That Could Be Affected by 

Development in the Study Area Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 

 

Number of federal candidates, BLM-designated 

sensitive species, and other special status species 

 193 179 42 181 

 

Number of federally listed species 21 19 9 21

 

Miles of critical habitat of federally endangered 

Colorado River fishes 

 99 0 0 99 

Acres of core and priority habitat areas for the 

greater sage-grouse 

714,462 120,690 2,338 710,512 

associated with Alternative 3 (2,338 acres). The area that is available for application under 

Alternatives 1 and 4 include about 382,000 acres of land for which lease stipulations have been 

established in existing RMPs to protect federally listed and candidate species, BLM-designated 

sensitive species, and other special status species. These lands have been excluded from 

consideration for leasing under Alternative 2. For Alternatives 1, 3, and 4, however, existing 

BLM policies regarding protection of sensitive species and their habitat would be implemented. 

6.1.5.8 Visual Resources 

 Under all the alternatives, the amendment of land use plans to identify areas available for 

application for leasing for commercial oil shale development would not affect visual resources 

within or in the vicinity of the lease areas identified. However, a number of potential sensitive 

visual resources occur within, and in the vicinity of, the potential lease areas identified by the 

alternatives. These sensitive visual resource areas could be affected if construction and operation 

of commercial oil shale projects occur in the future in the areas identified as available for 

commercial leasing. 

 The visual resources that could be affected by the future construction and operation of 

commercial oil shale projects would be identical under the alternatives for similar projects 

located in potential lease areas common to the alternatives (i.e., where the lease areas would 

overlap). Under Alternative 1, BLM would designate 2,017,741 acres of public land available 

for application for commercial oil shale leasing. Under Alternative 4, the BLM would 

designate 1,968,079 acres available for application for leasing, or 49,662 fewer acres than the 

2,017,741 acres available under Alternative 1. While Alternative 4 has fewer acres of land than 

Alternative 1, there is relatively little difference between the alternatives in the numbers and 

types of sensitive visual resource areas that could be affected by future commercial development. 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-242 

 Under Alternative 2, the BLM would designate 676,967 acres of public land available for 

application for commercial oil shale leasing, 1,340,774 fewer acres than under Alternative 1, and 

1,291,112 fewer acres than under Alternative 4. Thus the numbers of sensitive visual resource 

areas that could be affected by future commercial development in or near these lands would be 

expected to be much smaller under Alternative 2 than under Alternatives 1 or 4. Under 

Alternative 3, the BLM would designate only about 32,640 acres of public land available for 

application for commercial oil shale leasing. Thus the number of sensitive visual resource areas 

that could be affected by future commercial development in or near these lands would be 

expected to be a small fraction of those under Alternative 1, 2, or 4. 

6.1.5.9 Cultural Resources 

 Table 6.1.5-9 identifies the amount of available acreage, the amount of acreage surveyed 

for cultural resources, and the current number of known cultural resource sites under each of the 

alternatives. Under Alternative 1, a total of 441,938 acres of the 2,017,741 acres available for 

application for commercial leasing have been surveyed for cultural resources. This acreage 

includes existing ACECs not closed to mineral development that contain important cultural 

resources. Adverse effects on cultural resources, as described in Sections 4.10 and 6.1.2.9, could 

occur in these areas as a result of future commercial development. 

 Alternative 2 excludes areas with sensitive resources and special designations from 

consideration, resulting in 676,967 acres being available for application for leasing and 

development. Approximately 176,039 acres of the area identified under Alternative 2 has been 

surveyed for cultural resources. These surveys found approximately 3,509 sites. 

 Approximately 26,880 acres in Colorado and 5,760 acres in Utah could be impacted by 

the current and pending RD&D projects. Cultural resource surveys have examined only portions 

of the area in Colorado open to RD&D, while surveys have covered nearly all such areas in 

Utah. Only two of the eight 160-acre tracts in Colorado contain archaeological sites 

(Section 6.1.3.9). Measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate impacts on cultural resources are 

required under current authorities for the development of these projects. While these impacts are 

primarily discussed in the context of Alternative 3, the Research Lands Focus Alternative, these 

impacts from the RD&D activities, as well as the mitigation measures, would also occur under 

the other alternatives. 

 Under Alternative 4, the amount of acreage available for application for commercial 

leasing is reduced from that of Alternative 1 (2,017,741 acres) to 1,968,079 acres. The amount 

of land surveyed for cultural resources under Alternative 4 is comparable to that under 

Alternative 1. The relative amount of survey for the both areas is the same: 22%. 

 The four alternatives differ with regard to the greater or lesser degree to which cultural 

resources are likely to be considered during future leasing and development. Alternatives 2, 3, 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-243 

TABLE 6.1.5-9 Available Acreage under Each Alternative with the Potential to Contain Cultural 

Resources 

Parameter Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 

 

Acres available for application for leasing and 

development 

2,017,741 676,967 32,640 1,968,079 

 

Acres surveyed 441,938 176,039 19,050 437,230 

Percentages of area surveyed 22% 26% 58% 22% 

Approximate number of recorded sites 8,406 3,509 376 8,198 

Acres of high or medium sensitivity to contain 

cultural resources 

1,468,386 482,014 29,366 1,445,336 

Percentages of area with high or medium 

sensitivity 

73% 71% 90% 73% 

and 4 exclude areas that are not excluded in Alternative 1, and thereby protect more areas with 

known high-value cultural resources from future consideration for development. Alternatives 2, 

3, and 4 differ according to their acreages with regard to the likelihood that more or fewer 

cultural resources will be considered in compliance with existing laws, regulations, and policies 

for measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate impacts from leasing or development. 

6.1.5.10 Indian Tribal Concerns 

 The potential impacts of the four oil shale land allocation alternatives vary more in scale 

than in kind. Under each alternative, some land is made available for application for leasing, and 

some lands are excluded from leasing and given some protection. In general, the more land that 

is available for leasing and the less excluded, the greater the likelihood that impacts on resources 

important to Native Americans would be considered during leasing and development. 

Table 6.1.5-9 shows how much land with a high or medium sensitivity for cultural resources 

would be available for application for leasing in each alternative. However, even on lands 

available for application, NEPA analyses and Section 106 cultural resource surveys would be 

required on a project-specific basis. These processes, combined with consultation with affected 

tribes, should result in efforts to avoid, minimize, and mitigate adverse effects. Alternative 1 

makes the largest amount of land available for application for leasing (2,017,741 acres); 

Alternative 4 makes somewhat less land available (1,968,079 acres); Alternative 2 makes about a 

third as much acreage available (676,967 acres); and Alternative 3 is the most restrictive, making 

only 32,640 acres available. Conversely, for the most part, the alternatives making the least 

amount of land available for application included the most area in land use categories in the most 

geologically prospective oil shale area with surface use restrictions that provide some protection 

for traditional resources. Alternative 2 affords the most protection, excluding all areas excluded 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-244 

under Alternative 1, as well as all areas containing wilderness characteristics, plus additional 

ACECs, all areas that the BLM identified has having wilderness characteristics, priority or core 

sage-grouse areas, and all of Adobe Town. Alternative 4 proactively protects more than 

Alternative 1, but less than Alternative 2. Under all alternatives except Alternative 3, split estate 

lands in the Hill Creek Extension of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation would be available for 

application. Within the RD&D area and the PRLA, Alternative 3 makes the most land available 

for application, while Alternative 2 makes the least RD&D lands available if current leaseholders 

relinquish their leases. Archaeological sites associated with Native Americans and features such 

as rock art would be identified in cultural resources surveys. All but Alternative 2 would allow 

surface mining, the potentially most destructive technology for resources of Native American 

concern. 

 In summary, based on the amount of land made available for application for leasing and 

the extractive technologies allowed, Alternative 3 has the least potential to result in adverse 

effects on resources important to tribes, followed by Alternative 2, Alternative 4, and 

Alternative 1. 

6.1.5.11 Socioeconomics 

 Under Alternatives 1 through 4, the proposed land use plan amendments could result in 

impacts on the socioeconomic environment, specifically in increases or decreases in property 

values (see Section 4.12.1.6). 

 The socioeconomic impacts of the RD&D projects and impacts on transportation systems 

and traffic levels at each of the RD&D locations are the same for each of the four alternatives 

as described in Section 6.1.1.11. Under Alternative 1, a total of 2,017,741 acres of land in 

Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming are allocated for commercial oil shale development, as compared 

to 676,967 acres under Alternative 2; 32,640 acres under Alternative 3 (all in Colorado and 

Utah); and 1,968,079 acres under Alternative 4. With the possible exception of impacts on 

property values (see Section 4.12.1.6), there are no socioeconomic or transportation impacts 

associated with this land use designation. Socioeconomic and transportation impacts could result, 

however, from post-lease construction and operation as described in Sections 4.12 and 5.12. 

These impacts would be considered in project-specific NEPA analyses that would be conducted 

at the commercial lease and development phases of projects. 

 The types of impacts on transportation systems and traffic levels would be identical under 

Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4 for similar projects located in areas common to the alternatives (i.e., in 

areas where land available for leasing is the same). Because of the difference in the areas 

identified as available for application for leasing under Alternatives 1 and 4, transportation 

systems and traffic levels could be affected by commercial development at more locations under 

Alternatives 1, 2, and 4 than under Alternative 3. However, because of the need for project- and 

site-specific information, it is not possible to identify the nature and magnitude of the impacts of 

commercial oil shale development on transportation systems under Alternatives 1, 2, 3, or 4. 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-245 

6.1.5.12 Environmental Justice 

 Under Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4, no environmental justice impacts are associated with 

the previous designation of lands as available for application for oil shale development. Impacts 

could result, however, from post-lease construction and operation as described in Section 4.13. 

These impacts would be considered in project-specific NEPA analyses that would be conducted 

at the commercial lease and development phases of projects. 

 More lands would be made available for application for leasing under Alternatives 1, 2, 

and 4 than under Alternative 3. However, because of the need for project- and site-specific 

information, it is not possible to identify the nature and magnitude of the potential environmental 

justice impacts of commercial oil shale development under Alternatives 1, 2, 3, or 4. Thus, it is 

not possible to differentiate among these alternatives regarding environmental justice impacts. 

6.1.5.13 Hazardous Materials and Waste Management 

 The amendment of land use plans to identify areas available for application for leasing 

for commercial oil shale development would not result in hazardous material and waste issues 

within or in the vicinity of the lease areas identified under Alternatives 2, 3 or 4. However, the 

construction and operation of commercial oil shale projects in the lease areas would use and 

generate hazardous materials and wastes under each of alternatives. 

 Because the use of hazardous materials and the generation of wastes are related to the 

specific design of a commercial oil shale project rather than project location, it is not possible to 

differentiate among the alternatives as to the hazardous materials and waste that could be used or 

generated during commercial oil shale construction and operation. For similar commercial oil 

shale projects (similar in design and operation), the hazardous materials and wastes associated 

with projects developed under Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4 would be similar. Because of the larger 

amount of land that would be made available for application for leasing under Alternatives 1 and 

4, the use and/or generation of hazardous materials and wastes could occur at more locations 

under Alternatives 1 and 4 than under Alternatives 2 or 3. In any case, the impacts of hazardous 

material and waste handling (storage, use, and disposal) would be expected to be similar under 

each alternative (Section 4.14.1) regardless of project location. 

6.1.5.14 Health and Safety 

 The amendment of land use plans to identify areas available for application for leasing 

for commercial oil shale development would not result in health and safety issues within or in 

the vicinity of the areas available for application for leasing identified under Alternatives 2, 3, or 

4. The future construction and operation of commercial oil shale projects would have identical 

health and safety concerns among all four alternatives for projects with identical plans of 

development located in areas available for application for leasing common to the alternatives 

(i.e., where the areas would overlap). Potential impacts could occur from accidents causing 

injuries and fatalities, possible hearing loss from high noise levels, and inhalation of particulates 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-246 

and/or volatile compounds emitted from the facilities. Construction and operation of individual 

facilities under any of the alternatives statistically would be expected to result in less than 

1 fatality per year and approximately 125 injuries per year. Health impacts on the general public 

could occur from exposure to emissions from oil shale facilities, but in the absence of sitespecific and process-specific data, no differences in health and safety impacts among 

Alternatives 1, 2, 3, or 4 can be identified. 

 Differences in health and safety concerns among the alternatives would be largely 

associated with differences in individual project designs and, to a lesser degree, differences in the 

locations of individual projects. For example, projects requiring longer transportation routes and 

longer utility and pipeline ROWs would have a greater potential for transportation accidents as 

well as ROW construction-related accidents. It is not possible to quantify differences in health 

and safety impacts from project construction and operation under Alternatives 1, 2, 3, or 4 in this 

PEIS. Under any of the alternatives, health and safety issues would be evaluated at the project 

level (i.e., as part of project-specific NEPA analyses), and a comprehensive facility health and 

safety plan and worker safety training would be required as part of the plan of development for 

every proposed commercial oil shale project. 

6.1.6 Cumulative Impacts 

 In its regulations implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA 

(40 CFR Part 1508.7), the CEQ (1997) defines cumulative effects as follows: 

“The impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the 

action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes 

such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but 

collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time.” 

 In this PEIS, the proposed action is to amend land use plans to allow certain lands to be 

considered for commercial leasing. That is, the decision made at the plan level does nothing 

more than remove (or leave in place) the administrative barrier (plan conformance) to the BLM 

considering any applications for leasing. The plan amendments would identify areas (as 

described above) as available or not available for application for commercial oil shale leasing. 

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 NEPA analysis would be required prior to the issuance of any 

lease of oil shale or tar sands resources. Amendment of the RMPs does not authorize any 

ground-disturbing activities and is not an irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources 

under NEPA (see 40 CFR 1502.16). Moreover, amendment of RMPs does not constitute the 

granting of any property right. In this respect, the limited scope and scale of the proposed 

action of amending the land use plans—and any potential environmental impacts of these 

amendments—necessarily results in the need for only a limited cumulative effects analysis in 

this PEIS. Analysis of the cumulative effects in this PEIS will be qualitative to reflect the limited 

and highly speculative character of the information available, and the limited nature of the 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-247 

decision to be made on the basis of this PEIS.15 At the leasing decision and at the decision to 

approve a plan of development, more specific cumulative effects analyses would be appropriate, 

and such analysis would be able to be completed, because specific technical and environmental 

information for those analyses should be available. 

 As stated above and in Sections 6.1.2 and 6.1.3, with the possible exception of a change 

in local property values, there would be no environmental or socioeconomic impacts under 

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 from the amendment of land use plans to identify lands as available or 

not available for application for commercial oil shale leasing. Therefore, there would be no 

cumulative impacts from these alternatives. However, direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts 

could occur as a result of future commercial oil shale development that could be facilitated by 

such land use plan amendments. The focus of this cumulative impacts assessment, then, is the 

impacts from this future development, rather than the impacts from the land use plan amendment 

decision. That is, the purpose of this cumulative impacts assessment is to discuss, in a qualitative 

way, how the environmental and socioeconomic conditions within the study area might be 

incrementally affected over the next 20 years (the study period) by oil shale development that 

could occur on lands made available for application for commercial development in the land use 

plan amendments under Alternatives 1, 2, 3, or 4. 

 This section describes, in a preliminary way, the possible cumulative impacts of potential 

commercial oil shale development that could occur over the next 20 years. More specific 

information regarding impacts, including cumulative impacts, would be provided by the analysis 

conducted at any future leasing stage and at the review of any project-specific plan of 

development. The impacts presented here are in the context of other major activities in the study 

areas on both BLM-administered and nonfederal lands that could also affect environmental 

resources and the socioeconomic setting. The study areas considered usually include the lands 

managed by a BLM field office that contain oil shale resources and the ROI counties associated 

with them, as defined in Table 3.11.2-1. Larger areas are considered for certain resources 

(e.g., land, air, and water). This section considers five major categories of activities that could 

have cumulative impacts: oil and gas development, coal mining and preparation, other minerals 

development, energy infrastructure development, and other activities (e.g., tar sands 

development, grazing, fire management, forestry, and recreation). Section 6.1.6.3 presents the 

possible cumulative impacts of potential commercial oil shale development that could occur 

under Alternatives 2, 3, and 4, and addresses the same resources analyzed in Sections 4.2 

through 4.15. 

 The current status of resources (including past and present actions) is described in 

Chapter 3. This section focuses on the cumulative impacts of the possible oil shale development 

that could occur under Alternatives 1, 2, 3, or 4, when added to a set of reasonably foreseeable 

future actions that are projected to occur or that could occur over the next 20 years (as described 

in Section 6.1.6.2). These projections were drawn from a variety of sources, as indicated in the 

 

15 Oil shale and tar sands development could not occur until a leasing decision has been made and implemented 

(leases issued). After leases are issued, additional permits and environmental analysis would be required before 

operations could begin. 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-248 

text, but include developments on both BLM-administered and nonfederal lands. The accuracy of 

such projections is greatest during the first few years of the 20-year period and decreases over 

the time frame assessed. In particular, future levels of commercial oil shale development are 

unknown. For the purposes of analysis, this cumulative impacts assessment examines the 

incremental impacts of a single oil shale facility (as described in Section 4.1), recognizing that 

more than one of these facilities may be brought into operation during the study period. While 

the cumulative impacts described in this section represent an initial estimate of impacts for 

activities projected to occur in the 20-year time frame, the assessment requires reevaluation if the 

planned level of development changes drastically in the future. 

 However, because under all alternatives there is a lack of information on the magnitude 

of future actions on public land, the number of projects that might be undertaken, and the likely 

locations for future development, the magnitude of the differences among the cumulative effects 

of the alternatives cannot be evaluated (i.e., the same level of future development might occur 

under each alternative). 

6.1.6.1 Overview of Assumptions and Impact-Producing Factors for Major 

Activities in the Study Area 

 6.1.6.1.1 Oil and Gas Development. Associated with oil and gas development on both 

federal and nonfederal lands are impact-producing factors such as water use, the production of 

wastes and water, contaminant emissions to air and water, the use and alteration of land, and 

potential oil spills. The environmental impacts of oil and gas drilling are highly variable and 

dependent on the depth of drilling, drilling methods used, depressurization and dewatering of 

aquifers, and alteration of flow patterns and on factors such as construction techniques, degree of 

hydraulic fracturing, the hydrologic framework, and the depth of exploration. Table 6.1.6-1 

summarizes the estimated impacts of oil and gas drilling on a per-well basis for select resource 

areas. 

 Rough estimates of overall resource requirements for oil and gas drilling are available 

from several sources. The BLM is continuing to improve the way it manages oil and gas 

operations, in particular, establishing BMPs to minimize environmental effect. Many of these 

specific mitigation measures reduce surface impacts and are applied as conditions of approval 

prior to operations on a lease. For wells on federal lands, the amount of surface disturbance for 

each well has been decreasing from about 3 acres to 1.5 acres per well or less. It is expected that 

standard industry practices in accordance with existing regulations are used for installation of oil 

and gas wells on private lands. 

 For the purpose of analysis, it is assumed that the amount of land disturbed for oil and gas 

well installation on either federal or nonfederal lands varies from 2.5 to 15 acres per well. The 

higher end of the range is certainly an overestimate in locations where multiwell pads would be 

used (e.g., the Roan Plateau RMP amendments call for 17 wells per pad atop the plateau) 

(BLM 2006i). In addition, only about 60% of the initially disturbed area would have long-term 

surface disturbance, with the other 40% generally being revegetated within 2 years (BLM 2006i). 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-249 

TABLE 6.1.6-1 Assumptions Associated with Oil and Gas Drilling 

Impact-Producing Factor 

Values Used in 

Impact Analysis 

(per well drilled) Reference 

 

Surface disturbance (acres) 2.515 Thompson 2006a; DOE 2006; 

BLM 1994, 2002a, 2005a, 2006i 

 

Water use (ac-ft/yr) 0.55 BLM 2006i 

Drilling waste (bbl) 4,100 DOE 2006 

Regulated emissions (CO, SO2, NOx) (tons) 0.37 DOE 2006 

 

CO2 emissions (tons) 97 DOE 2006 

 

Other nonregulated emissions 

(CH4, non-CH4 hydrocarbons) (tons) 

0.17 DOE 2006 

 

Amount of oil spilled (gal) 24 DOE 2006

 

Employment (direct FTEs) 3 BLM 2006i

 6.1.6.1.2 Coal Mining and Preparation. Impact-producing factors for coal mining and 

preparation (e.g., removal of sulfur) on either federal or nonfederal lands include water use, 

contaminant emissions to air and water, use and alteration of land, and occupational hazards. 

These factors are discussed in the DOE Environmental Information Handbook Energy 

Technologies and the Environment (1988) and summarized for select resource areas in 

Table 6.1.6-2. As is the case with oil and gas operations, the BLM is improving its management 

of coal operations by establishing BMPs to minimize environmental effects. Many specific 

mitigation measures reduce surface impacts and are applied as conditions of approval prior to 

operations on a lease. 

 6.1.6.1.3 Other Minerals Development. Although several metals and minerals are 

mined in the three states (e.g., clay, copper, gilsonite, gold, iron, lead, lime, molybdenum, potash 

[potassium-based compounds], sand, gravel, silver, sodium minerals [e.g., nahcolite, trona], 

uranium, vanadium, and zinc), most are not mined in the counties that might experience oil shale 

development. The predominant materials currently mined in these areas are sand and gravel. 

 Sand and gravel deposits are found in river and stream terraces, floodplains, and 

channels, both current and ancient. These deposits are a type of salable minerals. Extraction of 

instream sand and gravel deposits could result in adverse environmental impacts, such as 

changes in streamflow and increased turbidity, which would affect fisheries and recreational use. 

Extraction of sand and gravel from floodplains or low terraces could create new channels and 

alter sediment deposition, again adversely affecting the ecology of the nearby river or stream. 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-250 

TABLE 6.1.6-2 Assumptions Associated with Coal Mining and Preparationa

Impact-Producing Factor 

Impact 

Per Million Tons of 

Surface-Mined Coal 

Per Million Tons of 

Underground Mined Coal 

 

Surface disturbance (acres) 

Area for facilities 4.3 4 

Strip mining 20 NAb

Waste storage 2.6 1 

 

Water use (million gal) 

Coal preparation 20 20

Dust control 35 35

 

Air emissions (tons)c 

CO 15 6.3 

SO2 4.9 0.59 

NOx 76 d

Particulates 4 0.48 

Fugitive dustse 1,870 d

Hydrocarbons 4.8 0.48 

Aldehyde 1.2 d

 

Diesel fuel use (103 gal) 3,021 38 

 

Electricity use (106 MWh) 6 39 

 

Employment (direct FTEs) 180 460

 

Occupational hazards (deaths per 100,000 workers, 

disabling injuries per 100 workers) 

0.07, 8 0.37, 45 

a Coal is prepared to increase its quality and heating value by removing sulfur and ash-forming 

constituents. 

b NA = information not available. 

c Surface mining values are for the western United States; underground values are for the eastern 

United States. 

d Unquantified or negligible. 

e Based on estimates for an Illinois surface mine with the following controls: paved access roads, 

watered and unpaved haul roads, and enclosed coal dumps with baghouse. Without these controls, 

estimated fugitive dust emissions would be 3,030 tons. 

Source: DOE (1988). 

 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-251 

Other general impacts from sand and gravel mining on either federal or nonfederal lands could 

include land disturbance, changes in groundwater quality, noise, dust, and visual changes. The 

proper management of sand and gravel mining and the application of mitigation could decrease 

impacts such that there would be minimal adverse impacts. For example, siting mining locations 

high up in the landscape (on floodplains and terraces rather than in stream channels) would 

decrease adverse impacts on stream hydrologic processes (Langer 2002). 

 Other materials mined in the potential oil shale development area include clay, gilsonite, 

gold, lime, sandstone, sodium minerals, uranium, and vanadium. These metals and minerals may 

be obtained through underground mining, surface (open pit) mining, or solution mining. Gold is 

obtained through both surface and underground mining. Mining of these substances can cause a 

variety of adverse environmental impacts, including the production of high volumes of solid and 

potentially hazardous waste, the contamination of surface water and groundwater, uncontrolled 

releases of produced water, land subsidence, physical instability of mine units, and air quality 

degradation, especially from particulate emissions. Uranium has an added potential for 

radiologically contaminating environmental media, leading to the subsequent possibility of 

exposures of biota and humans. 

 Metal mining historically has also caused contamination of surface water. The sources of 

contamination have included waste rock disposal, tailings, leaching sites (locations where 

valuable metals are collected by running solutions through the ore), and mine water. Depending 

on the local geology, the waste rock may contain other naturally occurring minerals toxic to 

biota, including arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, iron, lead, manganese, mercury, and 

nickel. In addition, cyanide (a highly toxic substance composed of carbon and nitrogen) is used 

extensively in the mining industry to aid in metal extraction. Serious adverse impacts on surface 

water from metal mining have occurred when runoff from waste sources has entered nearby 

water bodies; these impacts have included degradation of aquatic habitat and contamination of 

drinking water supplies. Additional adverse impacts would occur as a result of erosion and 

increased sedimentation of surface water. 

 An environmental impact from metal mining is the large volume of waste generated. The 

product-to-waste ratio can be very high; for example, in gold mining, almost all of the material 

removed from the earth (99.99%) is waste rock and tailings. Another area of concern is air 

quality degradation. Many metal-mining operations generate large volumes of fugitive dust from 

ore crushing and loading, blasting, and, over time, dried-up tailings ponds. 

 Many of the adverse impacts from mining discussed above occurred primarily in the past, 

and mitigation measures have been adopted to minimize their occurrence in present practice. 

Because of the wide variety of possible contaminants and impacts from mining of metals and 

other minerals, generic impacts (e.g., on a “per-ton mined” basis) are not discussed in this 

section. Cumulative impacts are discussed in Section 6.1.6.3 on the basis of the specific types of 

minerals being developed in each region. 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-252 

6.1.6.1.4 Energy Infrastructure Development 

Energy Corridors. An extensive infrastructure of oil and gas pipelines and electricity 

transmission ROWs exists in the western states. Most of the existing ROWs cross public lands 

(National Energy Policy Development Group 2001). As of 2010, Colorado had 6,738, Utah had 

6,040, and Wyoming had 18,852 ROWs crossing public lands (BLM 2010a). These ROWs serve 

as either long-distance paths or subregional and local distribution lines. It is projected that the 

growing demand for additional energy and electricity will result in an increased number of 

ROWs across public lands in the future (National Energy Policy Development Group 2001). 

Other federal agencies authorized to grant ROWs for electric, oil, and gas transmission include 

the USFS, the NPS (electric only), the USFWS, the BOR, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs 

(BIA). 

 The BLM, along with DOE, issued a PEIS (DOE and DOI 2008) to support designation 

of public lands for potential use for long-distance energy transmission corridors in the West. This 

was an effort to expedite permitting of transmission systems, such as oil and gas pipelines and 

power lines. The ROD for that PEIS (BLM 2009) designates federal energy corridors on public 

lands in areas that would be beneficial for energy development, but excludes sensitive lands 

(such as National Parks and National Monuments, ACECs, and roadless areas) to the extent 

practicable. Consideration is given to the locations of oil shale deposits, and possible corridor 

locations have been designated relatively near to these areas for future use if the oil shale is 

developed. The designation of public lands for potential use in energy transmission ROWs under 

the West-Wide Energy Corridor PEIS would not have direct impacts, with the possible exception 

of affecting current land use within the corridors and property values on private lands adjacent to 

or between corridor segments. 

 The eventual construction and operation of energy transmission ROWs, whether within 

federally designated energy corridors, within energy corridors on federal lands currently 

identified in land use plans, or at locations on nonfederal lands identified by industry and 

evaluated and authorized by appropriate agencies (e.g. BLM, USFS, tribes), could result in 

adverse environmental impacts on federal and nonfederal lands. The specific types, magnitudes, 

and extents of project-specific impacts would be determined by the project type (transmission 

line, pipeline) and its length and location on federal and nonfederal lands; thus, the impacts could 

be evaluated only at the project level. However, general potential impacts typical of project 

construction and operation include the use of geologic and water resources; soil disturbance and 

erosion; degradation of water resources; localized generation of fugitive dust and air emissions 

from construction and operational equipment; noise generation; disturbance or loss of 

paleontological and cultural resources and traditional cultural properties; degradation or loss of 

fish and wildlife habitat; disturbance of resident and migratory fish and wildlife species, 

including protected species; degradation or loss of plant communities; increased opportunity for 

invasive vegetation establishment; alteration of visual resources; land use changes; accidental 

release of hazardous substances; and increased human health and safety hazards. Construction 

and operation of energy transmission ROWs could also affect minority and low-income 

populations in the vicinity of the projects on both federal and nonfederal land as well as local and 

regional economies. 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-253 

 Electric Power Plants. Electric power plants are generally sited on private lands. Impacts 

from coal-fired electric power-generating plants include emissions of air pollutants, water use, 

production of large volumes of solid waste (e.g., coal combustion products [ash] and flue-gas 

cleanup waste), use and alteration of land, emissions and accidents associated with the 

transportation of raw materials and wastes, and socioeconomic impacts. Air emissions differ 

depending on the quality of feed coal utilized. Gas-fired power plants do not produce ash or 

significant wastes from flue gas cleanup, use less land, and have generally lower emissions of 

criteria pollutants and carbon dioxide per electric energy produced than do coal-fired plants. 

Table 6.1.6-3 summarizes the estimated impacts on various resource areas from the construction 

and operation of electric power plants fueled by coal and by natural gas. In the near term, lowsulfur Wyoming coal would most likely be utilized for power plants in the study area. Newly 

built plants are likely to be fueled by natural gas for the foreseeable future. Additional electric 

power might be required over the study period to support new development. 

 Renewable Energy. The BLM and USFS have proposed a program to facilitate 

geothermal leasing on lands administered by the BLM and the USFS that have geothermal 

potential in 12 western states, including Alaska. Under the proposal, the BLM and USFS would 

identify public and NFS lands with geothermal potential as being legally open or closed to 

leasing; issue or deny geothermal lease applications pending as of January 1, 2005; identify 

public lands that are administratively closed or open, and under what conditions; 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 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 2008g). A ROD for the program was issued in December 2008 

(BLM 2008g). 

 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 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 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) and the Supplement to the Draft Solar PEIS published in 

October 2011 (BLM and DOE 2011). 
TABLE 6.1.6-3 Assumptions Associated with Coal-Fired and Natural Gas–Fired Power Plants Assumed Values Impact-Producing Factor A 1,500-MW Coal-Fired Plant (BLM 2007d)a A 360-MW Current Design Coal-Fired Plant and a 425-MW NSPS Plant (Spath et al. 1999) A 505-MW Curr

and a 505–

(Spath a

Land use (acres) 3,000 total (includes construction acreage and 1,000 acres for storing combustion products) NA 130 acres (NETL Water use (ac-ft/yr) 8,000 ac-ft/yr NA 2,360-2,930 ac-ft/

110–120 ac-ft/yr (Maulbetsch and 

Fuel source and composition Wyoming-grade low-sulfur coal (0.47% sulfur, 6.4% ash); heat of combustion = 8,220 Btu/lbb (Ellis et al. 1999) Illinois No. 6 bituminous (4% sulfur, 0.1% chlorine, 1.1% nitrogen, 10% ash dry basis); heat of combustion = 10,800 Btu/lb Gas meeting U.S. 

Specifications (G35.4 MJ/m3 [950 

4.6 mg/m3 mercap

total sulfur, 1–3 m

Fuel requirements 3.75 million tons/yr (2,330 tons/yr/MW)c Current plant, 1.6 million tons/yr 

(4,320 tons/yr/MW); NSPS plant, 1.7 tons/yr (3,950 tons/yr/MW) 

Current plant: 0.5(1,065 tons/yr/MW

Coal combustion products (ash)d

NA Current plant, ~36,000 kg/GWh; 

NSPS plant, ~33,000 kg/GWh 

Not applicable. 

Solid waste (flue-gas cleanup) 

NA Current plant, ~86,000 kg/GWh; 

NSPS plant, ~92,000 kg/GWh 

Small amount of unit every 1–5 ye

Emissions SO2 Meet NSPS standards: 258 g/GJ heat 

input (0.6 lb/million Btu) 

Current plant, 6,400 kg/GWh; NSPS plant, 2,229 kg/GWh 

Current plant: 2 kNSPS plant: 634 k
TABLE 6.1.6-3 (Cont.) Assumed Values Impact-Producing Factor A 1,500-MW Coal-Fired Plant (BLM 2007d)a A 360-MW Current Design Coal-Fired Plant and a 425-MW NSPS Plant (Spath et al. 1999)b A 505-MW Curr

and a 505

(Spath a

NOx Meet NSPS standards: 258 g/GJ heat input (0.6 lb/million Btu) Current plant, 3,039 kg/GWh; NSPS plant, 2,041 kg/GWh 95 kg/GWh (SCR 

NSPS plant: 634 k

CO NA Current plant, 134 kg/GWh; NSPS plant, 123 kg/GWh 27 kg/GWh CO2 NA Current plant, ~970,000 kg/GWh; NSPS plant, ~890,000 kg/GWh 371,200 kg/GWh Particulates Meet NSPS standards: 13 g/GJ heat input (0.03 lb/MMBtu) Current plant, 135 kg/GWh; NSPS plant, 123 kg/GWh 62 kg/GWh; NSPS plant: 95 k

VOCs NA Current plant, 16 kg/GWh; 

NSPS plant, 14 kg/GWh 

10 kg/GWh (NMH

CO2e NA NA 372,200 kg/GWh 

Employment (direct FTEs)e

Construction: 800 average over 4 yr (1,200 peak); operations: 135 

NA NA 

Transportation 12 trains/week; 100 cars/train; 

10,000 tons/trainb

1314 trains/week; 17 cars/train; 

1,445 tons/train 

Pipeline 

Abbreviations: GTCC = greater than Class C; NA = information not available; NMHC = non-methane hydrocarbons; NSPS = new sostandard; SCR = selective catalytic converter. 

a Coal-fired power plants are assumed to operate at 60% capacity factor; thus, a 1,500-MW plant generates approximately 7,900 GW

generates 1,900 GWh/yr; and a 425-MW plant generates 2,200 GWh/yr. 

Footnotes continued on next page. 
TABLE 6.1.6-3 (Cont.) b Representative data from Powder River Basin coal. Source: Ellis et al. (1999). c Sources for fuel requirement and transportation assumptions: Thompson (2006b,c). d Coal combustion products may not require disposal in landfills; the EPA sponsors a beneficial reuse program (EPA 2008). e Source for FTE employment values: Thompson (2006b). 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-257 

6.1.6.1.5 Other Activities 

 Other Oil Shale Development. The leases associated with the RD&D projects (described 

under Alternative 1) grant the lessees the right to develop oil shale on the designated PRLAs if 

they are able to meet certain requirements (see Section 1.4.1). At this time, it is not known 

whether the lessees will be able to meet these requirements; if they are met, the lessees will be 

allowed to develop these lease areas (Figure 2.3-2), totaling 32,000 acres, with the same basic 

technologies demonstrated during the RD&D process. Therefore, the five Colorado PRLAs 

could be developed using in situ technologies, and the Utah PRLA could be developed using 

underground mining. It is assumed that the impacts from these projects would fall within the 

range of impacts for similar oil shale facilities as summarized in Chapter 4. Because of the 

incomplete stage of the RD&D projects, such commercial development is not expected in the 

near term (e.g., within the next 5 years). 

 As described in Chapters 1 and 2, the BLM may issue new RD&D leases where the land 

use plans allow for oil shale leasing. As with future commercial oil shale leasing, it is not known 

where the industry would seek to locate the most promising RD&D projects. It is also not known 

what new technologies would be demonstrated; however, it is most probable that the types of 

technologies, as well as their possible effects, would be qualitatively similar to the three kinds of 

processes analyzed in the PEIS, although smaller in scale prior to any conversion to commercial 

leases and expansion to preference right acreage. Furthermore, it is not known how many RD&D 

leases, if any, would be issued pursuant to a call for expressions of interest, or in what sequence. 

The environmental impacts of such RD&D leases will be analyzed in lease-specific NEPA 

documents. The BLM published in the Federal Register a new call for nominations for RD&D 

leases in November 2009. Three proposals were selected for further consideration. Two RD&D 

lease proposals in Colorado completed NEPA analysis in the fall of 2012 and have been 

approved. These proposals were limited to a 160-acre lease, with potential expansion under a 

preference right lease to a maximum area of 640 acres. The third proposal, in Utah, is currently 

inactive. The RD&D leases are described in more detail in Section 2.3. 

 Nonfederal lands (e.g., state lands, private lands) overlie about 40% of the most 

geologically prospective oil shale area (see Section 3.1). These lands could also support oil shale 

development in the future. Because extensive R&D and environmental studies are required to 

attain permits, it is not anticipated that such development would occur in the next 10 years; it 

may, however, occur within the next 20 years. 

 Tar Sands Development. This PEIS addresses the environmental and socioeconomic 

impacts of land use plan amendments and potential development for both oil shale and tar sands, 

and thus, potential tar sands development is considered in the cumulative impact assessment. 

Because the level of tar sands development over the next 20 years is unknown, this assessment 

has assumed that one tar sands facility would be constructed and operated in any one of the Utah 

STSAs during the study period. Impact-producing factors for such a tar sands facility include 

surface disturbance, water use, waste generation, and local changes in employment and 

population density. The assumptions used for these factors are given in Section 5.1. 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-258 

 Grazing. Public and private lands in the study area are used extensively for livestock 

grazing. Environmental impacts of note associated with livestock grazing include potential 

degradation of soil, vegetation, wildlife habitat, and surface water quality (Krueger et al. 2002; 

BLM 2006k). For example, overgrazing could result in increased rates of erosion and topsoil 

losses. Allowing grazing during the nesting seasons of some species could result in trampling of 

the eggs and decreased viability of those species in the study area. Livestock could also degrade 

surface water quality if their manure and urine were deposited directly into the water or on land 

nearby. Good management practices can eliminate or mitigate many of these impacts. On BLM 

lands, grazing permits are required that specify the species allowed to graze, amount of grazing 

permitted, and other requirements to minimize environmental impacts. Today, the BLM manages 

livestock grazing in a manner aimed at achieving and maintaining public land health. To achieve 

desired conditions, the agency uses rangeland health standards and guidelines that the BLM 

developed in the 1990s with input from citizen-based Resource Advisory Councils across the 

West. Standards describe specific conditions needed for public land health, such as the presence 

of stream bank vegetation and adequate canopy and ground cover. Guidelines are the 

management techniques designed to achieve or maintain healthy public lands, as defined by the 

standards. These techniques include such methods as seed dissemination and periodic rest or 

deferment from grazing in specific allotments during critical growth periods. 

Fire Management. Fire management is used on public and private lands to aid in wildfire 

suppression. Underbrush is burned at regular intervals to avoid the buildup of large amounts of 

fuel on these lands. Fire is considered to have a natural role in the ecosystems and is used as a 

tool in managing those ecosystems. However, fires have potential environmental impacts that 

should be considered, particularly impacts on air quality and on threatened and endangered 

species (BLM 2002b). In general, impacts would be lower from more frequent, less intense, 

controlled fires than from infrequent wildfires. 

Forestry. In Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming, the BLM administers approximately 

14.2 million acres of forested lands of various types. Forested land is defined as being 10% 

stocked with live trees and at least 1 acre in size and 120 ft wide. According to a 2006 report on 

the status and condition of these forests, the national priorities for them include “maintaining and 

restoring forest health, salvaging dead and dying timber, providing high-quality wildlife and fish 

habitat, and providing economic opportunities in rural communities by making timber and other 

forest products, including biomass, available from vegetation management treatments” 

(BLM 2006l). Management techniques for BLM-administered forest lands include grazing 

restrictions, selective thinning of undergrowth and dead wood, prescribed burns, and selective 

harvesting of trees. Adverse environmental impacts on air quality, water quality, habitat, and 

threatened and endangered species could occur as a result of these management practices. For 

example, increased erosion after land clearing could cause siltation in streams and decrease water 

quality. 

Recreation. One mission of the BLM is to accommodate recreational use of public lands, 

such as fishing, hiking, horseback riding, mountain biking, camping, and OHV use. However, 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-259 

these uses can have adverse environmental impacts. For example, OHV use can result in soil 

compaction, increased erosion, and the proliferation of non-native plant species. Overuse of trails 

in primitive areas can also result in erosion and disturbance of threatened and endangered species 

habitat. Other ways by which recreational visitors can affect the environment include producing 

waste, emitting air pollutants from motorized vehicles, and using water. However, recreational 

use also has benefits, including allowing visitors to enjoy outdoor wilderness areas and reduce 

their stress, and stimulating economic growth in the area. The BLM works to minimize the 

adverse environmental impacts of recreational use by managing the activity. Examples of plan 

requirements include habitat improvement projects in recreational areas, construction of 

recreational use facilities that lead to decreased random use and degradation of wild areas, and 

waste management (BLM 2006m). 

6.1.6.2 Projected Levels of Major Activities in the Study Area 

Data on past, current, and planned future activities on BLM-administered lands and also 

on nonfederal lands were obtained mainly from various BLM RMPs and EISs available through 

the field offices to obtain their best current estimates for projected activities in the areas of oil 

and gas development (both on public and private lands), coal development, other minerals 

development, energy development, and other activities (e.g., grazing, fire management, forestry, 

and recreation) over the 20-year time period between 2012 and 2032. Field office staff were also 

contacted. The projected levels of major activities are summarized in Table 6.1.6-4 for Colorado, 

Table 6.1.6-5 for Utah, and Table 6.1.6-6 for Wyoming. 

6.1.6.2.1 Colorado 

 Oil Shale Development. As stated in Section 6.1.6.1.5, seven RD&D leases and PRLAs 

with a total area of 26,880 acres may be eligible for in situ oil shale developments in the future, 

based on the assumption that the RD&D leaseholders can meet BLM requirements. This total 

includes two second-round RD&D lease proposals for the Piceance Basin in Colorado, which 

were approved in the fall of 2012. In addition, an unknown level of oil shale development could 

occur on nonfederal lands in the future. 

Oil and Gas Development. In the Colorado study area, it is projected that a large amount 

of new oil and gas drilling and production would occur over the 20-year planning horizon. The 

largest amount is projected for the White River Field Office, for which a maximum of 

1,060 wells drilled per year is predicted; the total projected new oil and gas wells for applicable 

field offices in the state is 1,700 per year (see Table 6.1.6-4), which includes wells on both 

federal and nonfederal lands (projections for nonfederal lands not available for all field offices). 

Coal Mining. The largest coal reserves are in the Little Snake and Grand Junction 

Field Offices, with smaller amounts in the Colorado River Valley and White River Field 
TABLE 6.1.6-4 Projected Levels of Major Activities on BLM-Administered and Nonfederal Lands Considered in thImpacts Assessment for Oil Shale Development in Coloradoa Type of Activity Level of Activity Colorado River Valley Roan Plateau within Colorado River Valley but Assessed Separately White River Little Snakeb Grand Junction (BLM 1985)a 

Oil Shale Oil shale development on PRLAs (federal lands) None None Up to 5 in situ projects on 5,120 acres of PRLAs (total of 25,600 acres); up to 2 additional RD&D projects (total of 320 to 1,280 acres) None None 

Oil shale development on nonfederal lands 

Potential unknown Potential unknown Potential unknown Potential unknown Potential unknown 

Oil and Gas 

Recoverable oil and gas reserves 

NA 15.4 TCF gas (9 TCF 

on federal lands); oil ~15 BB (BLM 2006i) 

86.7 MMCF gas, 11.5 MB oil over 20 yr (1997

2016) 

(BLM 1996) 

9.94 TCF federal lands gas; 24.4 MB federal oil (BLM undated) 

NA 

Potential oil and gas wells drilled per year over next 20 yr (2012

2032)c

266 wells/yr (BLM 2011a) (based on 5,318 total over 20 yr [2011

2031]; 

assume same annual rate) 

185 wells/yr (based on 3,691 total over 20 yr [2005

2024]; 

1,570 on federal lands, 2,121 private) (BLM 2006i) 

1,060 wells/yr (Hollowed 2007) (based on 21,200 total over 20 yr) 

152 wells/yr (BLM 2010b) (based on 3,031 total over 20 yr) 

50 wells/yr (based o1,000 over 20 yr (1986

2005); assum

same annual rate) 
TABLE 6.1.6-4 (Cont.) Type of Activity Level of Activity Colorado River Valley Roan Plateau within Colorado River Valley but Assessed Separately White River Little Snakeb Grand Junction (BLM 1985)a Oil and Gas (Cont.) Annual surface disturbance over next 20 yr (20122032) (acres/yr)d 6654,000 4602,800 2,65016,000 3802,300 125750 

Wells to be abandoned annually over next 20 yr (20122032)e 66 wells/yr 46 wells/yr 265 wells/yr 38 wells/yr 13 wells/yr 

Geophysical (seismic) exploration projectsf

NA NA NA NA (Ernst 2006) NA 

Coal 

Recoverable reserves (million tons) 

1,600 (BLM 2011a)

Grand Hogback field 

Not economically recoverable (BLM 2004a) 

740 (BLM 1994) 5,800 (BLM 2010b) 4,900 

Predicted production over next 20 yr (20122032) (million tons/yr) 

None (BLM 2011a) None 22.5 

(Thompson 2006a) 

15 (BLM 2010b) 0.3 initially, 

increasing to 46 (Thompson 2006a) 
TABLE 6.1.6-4 (Cont.) Type of Activity Level of Activity Colorado River Valley Roan Plateau within Colorado River Valley but Assessed Separately White River Little Snakeb Grand Junction (BLM 1985)a Coal (Cont.) Surface area potentially leasable (acres) 18,000–29,000 (BLM 2011a) None 118,000 (surface and subsurface) (BLM 1997a) 624,000 (includes surface and subsurface acres); (BLM 2010b) 150,000 (Thompson 2006a) 

Surface mining area potentially disturbed annually (acres/yr) None (BLM 2011a) None None (Thompson 2006a) 200 (based on current activity) (Thompson 2006a) None (Thompson 2006a) 

Surface area potentially disturbed for underground mine support facilities (total, 20122032) (acres) 

None (BLM 2011a) None 500 500 (in addition to 

1,000 currently disturbed) (Thompson 2006a) 

500 (in addition to 100 currently disturbed) (Thompson 2006a) 

Other coal impacts None known None known None known None known None known 

Other Minerals (Sodium, Locatable and Salable Minerals) 

Sodium reserves (billion tons) 

Not known to occur Not known to occur 32 (nahcolite); 

19 (dawsonite) (BLM 1994) 

Not known to occur Not known to occur 
TABLE 6.1.6-4 (Cont.) Type of Activity Level of Activity Colorado River Valley Roan Plateau within Colorado River Valley but Assessed Separately White River Little Snakeb Grand Junction (BLM 1985)a Other Minerals (Sodium, Locatable and Salable Minerals) (Cont.) Sodium production rate over next 20 yr (20122032) (tons/yr) Not known to occur Not known to occur Unknown; current pilot scale at 6 tons/h nahcolite (BLM 1994b); leases have stipulation not to damage commingled/ overlying oil shale Not known to occur Not known to occur 

Surface disturbance from sodium production (acres/yr) 

None None 20 (Thompson 2006a) None None 

Locatable minerals (e.g., precious metals/gems, uranium, bentonite, gypsum, salt, limestone) 

Numerous claims, no significant activity (BLM 2011a); potential for limestone production for rock dust and power plant scrubbers (Thompson 2006a) 

Not known to occur Uranium/vanadium, 

post-WWII mining, none current (BLM 1994) 

Uranium, several areas favorable for deposits: gold—low placer gold potential; juniper limestone—46,000 tons/yr (BLM 2010b) 

Uranium, high potential for renewaof mining in Uravan Mineral Belt; currently a surge of activity in staking anexploration (Thompson 2006a) 
TABLE 6.1.6-4 (Cont.) Type of Activity Level of Activity Colorado River Valley Roan Plateau within Colorado River Valley but Assessed Separately White River Little Snakeb Grand Junction (BLM 1985)a Other Minerals (Sodium, Locatable and Salable Minerals) (Cont.) Salable minerals (gravel, sand, clay) Limited, localized production expected Limited, localized production expected (BLM 2004a) Demand is high in Rangely area (BLM 1994) Limited, localized production expected (BLM 2010b) Limited, localized production expected Energy Development Energy corridors (acres) NA NA NA NA NA 

Electric generating utilities 

NA NA NA NA NA 
TABLE 6.1.6-4 (Cont.) Type of Activity Level of Activity Colorado River Valley Roan Plateau within Colorado River Valley but Assessed Separately White River Little Snakeb Grand Junction (BLM 1985)a Energy Development (Cont.) Wind power No planned projects No planned projects; area not rated high in wind potential (BLM 2004a) No planned projects No planned projects; Little Snake Field Office wind rankings poor to fair (EIA 2006) No planned projects 

Other Forestry NA NA Annual allowable 

harvest from 45 to 890 acres/yr (BLM 1994) 

Long distances to utilization centers make traditional commercial harvesting of timber uneconomical (BLM 2010b);200 acres/yr Ponderosa pine, 50 acres/yr lodgepole pine, and 500 acres/yr pinyon-juniper woodland to be restored (BLM 2007e) 

NA 

Fire management NA NA 5,400 acres/yr 

prescribed burn (based on total for 19952009 [BLM 1994]) 

NA 1,800 acres/yr 

prescribed burn (based on total for 19851999) 
TABLE 6.1.6-4 (Cont.) Type of Activity Level of Activity Colorado River Valley Roan Plateau within Colorado River Valley but Assessed Separately White River Little Snakeb Grand Junction (BLM 1985)a Other (Cont.) Geothermal (leasable) NA (but 254 mi2 with high potential) (BLM 2011a) Area not rated high in geothermal potential (BLM 2004a) NA Low geothermal resource potential for commercial development; utilization local and limited (BLM 2010b). NA 

Land and realty NA Lands on top of plateau would be retained (BLM 2006i) NA NA NA Grazing and rangeland management 

NA Managed using 

combination of administrative, project, and best management practices (e.g., pasture and rest rotation, livestock exclusion, fences, and ponds) (BLM 2004a) 

NA NA NA 

Special management areas, recreation 

NA Of 259 mi of routes, 

163 mi to be designated for motorized use, 28 mi closed and reclaimed, 68 mi for administrative use. Hubbard Mesa open to OHV use (BLM 2006i) 

NA Developed recreation 

sites with established campgrounds, boat ramps, or other developed recreational facilities would be protected by a 40-acre NSO stipulation (BLM 2007e) 

NA 
TABLE 6.1.6-4 (Cont.) Type of Activity Level of Activity Colorado River Valley Roan Plateau within Colorado River Valley but Assessed Separately White River Little Snakeb Grand Junction (BLM 1985)a Other (Cont.) Vegetation NA NA NA NA NA 

Noxious/invasive weeds NA NA NA NA NA 

Abbreviations: BB = billion barrels; MB = million barrels; MMCF = million cubic feet; NA = information not available; NSO = No Surface Occupavehicle; TCF = trillion cubic feet. a Activities listed are those considered in addition to potential oil shale and tar sands development on federal lands. For the Grand Junction Field O

citation is given in the title field. Other references are given with specific data. In general, values are rounded to two significant figures. b The Little Snake Field Office does not contain potential oil shale development areas; however, it is included in this summary because of its prox

project area and extensive related potential future development. 

c Includes projections for federal lands and, where available, nonfederal lands. d Assumes a range of 2.5 to 15 acres/well for well pads, roads, and pipelines (representative range based on 2.5 acres/well from DOE (2006), 13 a

RMP (BLM 1994), net disturbance of 9.3 acres/well for Little Snake (Thompson 2006a), disturbance of 3.4 acres/well for Roan Plateau (BLM 2

Vernal Utah Planning Area (BLM 2002a), and 15 acres/yr from Moab Utah Planning Area (BLM 2005a). 

e Assumes 25% of new wells would be abandoned annually (based on estimate for the Rawlins Wyoming Field Office) (Allison 2006). All surface 

be reclaimed within 10 yr of abandonment. 

f If information not available, assume approximately 1 to 2 geophysical exploration projects/50 wells drilled annually (based on Wyoming estimat

disturbed/project (this is short-term disturbance such as crushed vegetation, uprooted brush, and minor soil disturbance; disturbance is generally At 1,600 wells drilled/yr, expect 32 to 64 projects/yr for Colorado overall. 
TABLE 6.1.6-5 Projected Levels of Major Activities for Seven Planning Areas Considered in the Cumulative Impac

Shale Development in Utaha Type of Activity Level of Activity Diamond Mountain (Western Half of Vernal PA) Book Cliffs (Eastern Half of Vernal PA) Henry Mountain (Southeast Portion of Richfield PA) 

(A

Oil Shale Oil shale development on PRLAs (federal lands) Potential for one underground mining project on 5,120 acres of PRLA; up to1 additional RD&D project (total of 160 to 640 acres). None None Oil shale and tar sands development on nonfederal lands Potential unknown Potential unknown Potential unknown Poten

Oil and Gas Recoverable oil and gas reserves NA NA NA NA 

Potential oil wells drilled per year over next 20 yr (2012

2032)b

270 wells (based on statistics for Duchesne County [Diamond Mountain Area] for 2008–2011 [State of Utah 2012]) 

90 wells (based on statistics for Uintah County [Book Cliffs Area] for 2008–2011 [State of Utah 2012]) 

30 wells total in RPA; 3 in HM only (includes oil, gas, and CBNG; based on 454 total over 15 yr [2005

2020]; 3/yr in HM 

only, as projected by BLM [2005c]) 

Few produno sigexpec(BLM 

Potential gas wells drilled per year over next 20 yr (2012

2032)b

147 wells (based on 4,035 total in VPA, 2,195 in DM only over 15 yr [2003

2017] as projected 

by BLM [2005b]) 

410 wells (based on statistics for Uintah County [Book Cliffs Area] for 2008–2011 [State of Utah 2012]) 

Included with potential oil wells drilled for HM PA 

55

9

based [2005BLM 2008
TABLE 6.1.6-5 (Cont.) Type of Activity Level of Activity Diamond Mountain (Western Half of Vernal PA) Book Cliffs (Eastern Half of Vernal PA) Henry Mountain (Southeast Portion of Richfield PA) 

(A

Oil and Gas (Cont.) Potential CBNG wells drilled per year over next 20 yr (20122032)b 4 wells (based on 130 total in VPA, 50 in DM over 15 yr [20032017] as projected by BLM [2005b]) 6 wells (based on 130 total in VPA, 80 in BC over 15 yr [20032017] as projected by BLM [2005b]) Included with potential oil wells drilled for HM PA. HM coal field not likely to be developed for CBNG in the next 15 yr (20052020) (BLM 2005d) Inclu

drillenumbProje1,609 

Projeunknpopu(BLM 

Annual surface disturbance over next 20 yr (20122032)c

1,050–6,300 acres/yr total (6603,960 oil; 3702,200 gas; 

1060 CBNG) 

1,2607,590 acres/yr total 

(2201,320 oil; 1,0256,150 gas; 1590 CBNG) 

75450 acres/yr RPA total; 945 HM (includes oil, gas, and CBNG) 

140

and C

Wells to be abandoned annually over next 20 yr (20122032)d

57 wells total (19 oil; 37 gas; 1 CBNG) 

54 wells total (16 oil; 36 gas; 2 CBNG) 

8 wells in RPA total, 1 in HM (includes oil, gas, and CBNG) 

142

CBN

Seismic exploration projectse

23 projects per yr (based on 4575 total for Vernal, assume half in DM) over 15 yr (20032015) (BLM 2002a); 200300 acres/yr disturbance 

23 projects per yr (based on 4575 total for Vernal, assume half in BC) over 15 yr (20032015) (BLM 2002a); 200300 acres/yr disturbance 

340 acres/yr disturbance (based on 5,100 total over 15 yr as projected by BLM [2005c]) 

150 aon 2,proje
TABLE 6.1.6-5 (Cont.) Type of Activity Level of Activity Diamond Mountain (Western Half of Vernal PA) Book Cliffs (Eastern Half of Vernal PA) Henry Mountain (Southeast Portion of Richfield PA) 

(A

Coal Recoverable reserves Tabby Mountain Coal Field, ~320 million tons (BLM 2002a) No known reserves (BLM 2002a) Includes south part of Wasatch Plateau Coal Field: ~6,000 million tons; HM Coal Field, 20 million tons (Jackson 2006); Emery Coal Field, reserve information not available Inclu

WasaFormBook ~280 Field(BLM 

Predicted production over next 20 yr (20122032) (million tons/yr) None (BLM 2002a) None (BLM 2002a) Wasatch Plateau Coal Field, 25; no production planned for HM (Jackson 2006). Emery Coal Field, no production 

information available 

Lila C

24; (BLM 

Surface area potentially leasable (acres) 

NA None NA NA 

Surface mining area potentially disturbed annually (acres/yr) 

None None None None 

Surface area potentially disturbed for underground mining support facilities (total acres, 20122032)f

None projected None projected 500 acres Most 

throumethSecti
TABLE 6.1.6-5 (Cont.) Type of Activity Level of Activity Diamond Mountain (Western Half of Vernal PA) Book Cliffs (Eastern Half of Vernal PA) Henry Mountain (Southeast Portion of Richfield PA) 

(A

Coal (Cont.) Other coal impacts None known None known None known Lila C

550 r150roadsinfrasongounkncurrebegin

distur(BLM 

Other Minerals (e.g., phosphate, gilsonite, locatable minerals, salable minerals) 

Phosphate production over next 20 yr (20122032) 

5,800 acres on BLMadministered land; 14,000 acres on private land (BLM 1993, 2002a); assume 50% surface mining (i.e., 10,000 acres) 

None (BLM 2002a) None None 

Gilsonite production rate over next 20 yr (20122032) (tons/yr) 

None (BLM 2002a) 60,000 (based on BLM 

projections for 20032017) 

(BLM 2002a) 

None None 
TABLE 6.1.6-5 (Cont.) Type of Activity Level of Activity Diamond Mountain (Western Half of Vernal PA) Book Cliffs (Eastern Half of Vernal PA) Henry Mountain (Southeast Portion of Richfield PA) 

(A

Other Minerals (e.g., phosphate, gilsonite, locatable minerals, salable minerals) (Cont.) Locatable minerals (e.g., precious metals/gems, uranium, bentonite, gypsum, limestone, salt) Minor to no activity (BLM 2002a) Minor to no activity (BLM 2002a) Uranium, vanadium, gold, copper: high potential for occurrence and development in HM area; exploration for economic quantities is continuing (BLM 2005d). One salt mine on west side of RPA to continue operations. Gypsum and salt production 

unlikely in next 15 yr, especially in HM area (BLM 2005d) 

Gypssouthhave devel(2005Sectiof acr

Salable minerals (gravel, sand, clay) 

Stone, 30 tons/yr (based on 60 tons/yr total for VPA, 20032017 (BLM 2002a). Limestone, 30,000 tons/yr (based on USFS land production, most in DM) (BLM 2002a). Sand and gravel, some production, quantity unknown (BLM 2002a) 

Stone, 30 tons/yr (based on 60 tons/yr total for VPA), 20032017 (BLM 2002a). Sand and gravel, some production, quantity unknown (BLM 2002a) 

For planning period of 20062020: 57 active sand and gravel disposal sites on BLM land; likely to continue producing ~20,000 yd3/yr, 

additional sites on public land (BLM 2005d). Assume 2 permits at 6 acres/permit, 12 acres/yr. Clay, only small-scale development. Stone, continue at current rate of about 11,000 tons/yr (BLM 2005d). Humate production to continue on small scale at Factory Butte in HM (BLM 2005d) 

Clay, minin15 yr new ddevelSectigravepotenroads 2005Secti
TABLE 6.1.6-5 (Cont.) Type of Activity Level of Activity Diamond Mountain (Western Half of Vernal PA) Book Cliffs (Eastern Half of Vernal PA) Henry Mountain (Southeast Portion of Richfield PA) 

(A

Energy Development Energy corridors NA NA NA NA Electric generating utilities NA NA NA NA Existing power plants NA NA NA Hiaw

QuesPlantFacilHuntplantemit water Pacifwill aincre

emiss(BLM 

Other 

Forestry NA NA NA Logg

(not qSecti
TABLE 6.1.6-5 (Cont.) Type of Activity Level of Activity Diamond Mountain (Western Half of Vernal PA) Book Cliffs (Eastern Half of Vernal PA) Henry Mountain (Southeast Portion of Richfield PA) 

(A

Other (Cont.) Fire management 5,500–7,800 acres/yr prescribed burns annually based on 11,000 acres total in VPA as projected by BLM for 20022006 (BLM 2005b, Section 3.4) or 156,425 acres/ decade total in VPA (BLM 2005b; Table 2.3) 5,500–7,800 acres/yr prescribed burns annually based on 11,000 acres total in VPA as projected by BLM for 20022006 (BLM 2005b, Section 3.4) or 156,425 acres/ decade total in VPA (BLM 2005b; Table 2.3) NA One p

5,000 last 2Secti

Land and realty NA NA NA Utah 

Transimpro2025 River widenAlso (BLM 

Livestock NA NA NA NA 

Special management areas, recreation 

427 mi/yr nonmotorized recreational trails, and 54 mi/yr motorized trails would be developed total in VPA (between 2006 and 2020) (BLM 2005b, Table 2.3); assume half in DM 

427 mi/yr nonmotorized 

recreational trails, and 54 mi/yr motorized trails would be developed total in VPA (between 2006 and 2020) (BLM 2005b, Table 2.3); assume half in BC 

NA NA 
TABLE 6.1.6-5 (Cont.) Type of Activity Level of Activity Diamond Mountain (Western Half of Vernal PA) Book Cliffs (Eastern Half of Vernal PA) Henry Mountain (Southeast Portion of Richfield PA) 

(A

Other (Cont.) Vegetation 2,3003,400 acres/yr vegetation treated total in VPA (between 2006 and 2020) (BLM 2005b, Table 4.18.2); assume half in DM 2,3003,400 acres/yr vegetation treated total in VPA (between 2006 and 2020) (BLM 2005b, Table 4.18.2); assume half in BC NA NA Soils/watersheds NA NA NA NA Miscellaneous NA NA NA NA San Juan (Area Similar to Monticello PA Grand Staircase–Escalante NM Moab PA SuOil Shale 

Oil shale development on PRLAs (federal lands) 

None None None See V

Oil shale and tar sands development on federal lands 

Potential unknown Potential unknown Potential unknown Poten

Oil and Gas 

Recoverable oil and gas reserves 

NA >270 million bbl (Allison 1997) NA NA 
TABLE 6.1.6-5 (Cont.) Type of Activity Level of Activity San Juan (Area Similar to Monticello PA Grand Staircase–Escalante NM Moab PA SuOil and Gas (Cont.) Potential oil wells drilled per year over next 20 yr (20122032)b 521 wells (includes gas, average of 13/yr, 195 total 20052020 (Vanden Berg 2005a) Few (only 47 exploratory wells currently in GSENM; ~200,000 acres of old leased land is under review) (BLM 1999) 1240 wells (includes gas, average of 26/yr, 390 total 20052020 (BLM 2005a) 400

year Potential gas wells drilled per year over next 20 yr (20122032)b Included with potential oil wells drilled for San Juan PA None (BLM 1999) Included with potential oil wells drilled for MOAB PA 610year Potential CBNG wells drilled per year over next 20 yr (20122032)b None (Vanden Berg 2005b) None (BLM 1999) 1 well (based on three 5-spot well clusters 2006–2020 [Tabet 2005]; assume same 

annual rate) 

11 CB

Annual surface disturbance over next 20 yr (20122032)c

13320 acres/yr (includes oil and gas) 

NA 33620 total (30600 [oil and 

gas]; 315 CBNG (similar to 225 total acres CBNG between 2006 and 2020) (Tabet 2005) 

2,600

Wells to be abandoned annually over next 20 yr (20122032)d

28 wells (includes oil and gas) (Vanden Berg 2005a) 

NA 620 wells (BLM 2005a) 140

year 

Seismic exploration projectse

150-acres/yr disturbance (based on 2,236 total over 15 yr as projected by Vanden Berg [2005a]) 

NA 240-acres/yr disturbance (based 

on 3,600 total over 15 yr [20052020] as projected by BLM [2005a]) 

NA (

tempdistur
TABLE 6.1.6-5 (Cont.) Type of Activity Level of Activity San Juan (Area Similar to Monticello PA Grand Staircase–Escalante NM Moab PA SuCoal Recoverable reserves (million tons) San Juan Coal Field (530,000 acres; 60% privately owned) (BLM 1991), 77 million tons available to surface mining; no current production because of poor quality/lack of rail transport (Vanden Berg 2005b) NA NA (Sego Formation produced ~3 million tons up through the 1950s) (Tabet 2005) ~7.6 

Predicted production over next 20 yr (20122032) (million tons/yr) None (Vanden Berg 2005b) None (BLM 1999) None (Tabet 2005) 303

(apprundersurfa

Surface area potentially leasable (acres) 

NA NA NA (Sego Formation may be 

attractive for future production because of low sulfur content, close to railway) 

NA 

Surface mining area potentially disturbed annually (acres/yr) 

NA NA NA NA 

Surface area potentially disturbed for underground mining support facilities (total acres, 20122032)f

None projected None projected None projected 1,000 

Other coal impacts None known None known None known See S
TABLE 6.1.6-5 (Cont.) Type of Activity Level of Activity San Juan (Area Similar to Monticello PA Grand Staircase–Escalante NM Moab PA SuOther minerals (e.g., phosphate, gilsonite, locatable minerals, salable minerals) Phosphate production over next 20 yr (20122032) None (Vanden Berg 2005b) None (BLM 1999) None (Tabet 2005g) 10,00

(see D

Gilsonite production rate over next 20 yr (20122032) (tons/yr) None (Vanden Berg 2005b) None (BLM 1999) None (Tabet 2005) 60,00

Locatable minerals (e.g., precious metals/gems, uranium, bentonite, gypsum, limestone, salt) 

Uranium/vanadium, 4.2 million-ton reserves in Four Corners area, estimated disturbance of 20 acres/yr for next 15 yr (20052020) (BLM 2005f); gold, 520 acres total disturbed for next 15 yr in Recapture Creek and Johnson Creek (Vanden Berg 2005b); limestone, 2030 thousand 

tons/yr, 2050 acres total disturbed for next 15 yr (Vanden Berg 2005b) 

Uranium/vanadium, deposits present (Allison 1997), not to be 

developed (BLM 1999); alabaster, ongoing production of 300 tons/yr, from surface, not usually quarried 

Uranium/vanadium, >1-million ton ore reserves; estimated disturbance of 10 acres/yr for next 15 yr (20052020) (Tabet 2005); copper, Lisbon Valley Project, produce for 10 yr (20062015); disturb 110 acres/yr (1,103 total, includes 266-acre pad for leaching, processing plant, ponds, 11-mi power line); salt/potash, 3.3 acres/yr (50-acres disturbance total over next 15 yr [20052020] Tabet 2005) 

Uranpotenleast distur5 acrat leaGypsdevelalabasalt, acoppedistur170 a
TABLE 6.1.6-5 (Cont.) Type of Activity Level of Activity San Juan (Area Similar to Monticello PA Grand Staircase–Escalante NM Moab PA SuOther Minerals (e.g., phosphate, gilsonite, locatable minerals, salable minerals) (Cont.) Salable minerals (gravel, sand, clay) Sand and gravel, 4 permits/yr producing ~127,000 yd3/yr, 6 acres/permit, thus 24 acres/yr disturbed over next 15 yr (20052020) (BLM 2005f). Building stone, 510 acres/yr over next 15 yr (20052020) (Vanden Berg 2005b) Sand and gravel, limited production for local use (Allison 1997) Sand and gravel, 4 permits/yr producing ~60,000 yd3/yr, 6 acres/permit; thus 24 acres/yr disturbed over next 15 yr (20052020) (Tabet 2005); building stone, ~0.5 acres/yr over next 15 yr (1 new facility, producing 5,00010,000 tons/ yr for 5 yr between 2006 and 2020) (Tabet 2005) Sand 

60 acat leaclay, devel

Energy Development 

Energy corridors NA NA NA Estim

(370,portioexpecshale 2008

Electric generating utilities NA NA NA 3,300 

regio(EIA propocapac

Existing power plants NA None NA See S
TABLE 6.1.6-5 (Cont.) Type of Activity Level of Activity San Juan (Area Similar to Monticello PA Grand Staircase–Escalante NM Moab PA SuOther Forestry NA NA NA See S

Fire management NA NA NA NA (

presc

Land and realty NA NA NA See S

(road

Livestock About 1.8 million acres used for grazing (BLM 2008i) NA NA NA (

used PA) Special management areas, 

recreation 

NA ~6 acres/yr disturbed (total of 

85 acres over 15 yr [20002014] 

for recreation and campsites (BLM 1999) 

NA NA (

nonmcamp

Vegetation NA 1,0003,000 acres/yr for 

vegetation restoration through burning (20,000 acres total for 20002014) 

NA At le

vegetfor re

Soils/watersheds NA <1 acre/yr (10 sites at 1 acre/site) 

(BLM 1999) 

NA NA (

distur

Miscellaneous NA ~17 acres/yr for utility and road 

ROWs and communications sites (260 acres total over 15 yr [20002014] [BLM 1999]) 

NA NA (

distur

Footnotes on next page. 
TABLE 6.1.6-5 (Cont.) Abbreviations: BC = Book Cliffs; BCF = billion cubic feet; CBNG = coal bed natural gas; DM = Diamond Mountain; GSENM = Grand StaircaseE

Monument; HM = Henry Mountain; NA = information not available; PA = planning area; RPA = Richfield Planning Area; STSA = Special Tar Sand 

Service; VPA = Vernal Planning Area. a Activities are those considered in addition to potential oil shale and tar sands development on federal lands. In general, values are rounded to two 

b Includes projections for federal lands and, where available, nonfederal lands. c Assumes a range of 2.5 to 15 acres/well for well pads, roads, and pipelines (representative range based on 2.5 acres from DOE (2006), 3 acres fr

Potential Report (BLM 2002a), and 15 acres from Moab PA (BLM 2005a). The 2.5 to 15-acre range encompasses estimates for San Rafael of 7.20-acres/ancillary facility (BLM 2004b; Appendix 21); Henry Mountain (4 acres/well + 8 acres/well for roads) (BLM 2005c); and Monticello (9Berg 2005a). d Generally assumes that 25% of new wells would be abandoned (based on estimate for the Rawlins Wyoming Field Office [Allison 2006]). Assum

(BLM 2005a) and 40% for Monticello (Vanden Berg 2005a). All surface disturbance is assumed to be reclaimed within 10 yr of abandonment. e If information not available, assume approximately 1 to 2 geophysical exploration projects/50 wells drilled annually (based on Wyoming estimat

disturbed/project (this is short-term disturbance such as crushed vegetation, uprooted brush, and minor soil disturbance; disturbance is generally At 550 to 630 wells drilled/yr, expect 11 to 26 projects/yr for Utah overall. f For areas where coal mining is ongoing and subsurface, a limited amount of surface disturbance over the 20-year study period was assumed (i.e.
TABLE 6.1.6-6 Projected Levels of Major Activities Considered in the Cumulative Impacts Assessment for Oil ShaWyominga Type of Activity Level of Activity Kemmerer Green River/Rock Springs Great Divide/Rawlins Sum

Oil Shale Oil shale development on nonfederal lands Potential unknown Potential unknown Potential unknown Poten

Oil and Gas Recoverable oil and gas reserves 20

60 BCF gas; 63

260 MB oil 

(Easley 2006) 

NA 31

47 TCF gas; 55 MB oil; 

748 MB natural gas liquids (Allison 2006) 

>31

4

oil; ~

Potential oil and gas wells drilled per year over next 20 yr (2012

2032)b

100 wells/yr (BLM 2008j) (includes natural gas; based on 2,040 total over 20 yr).

140 wells/yr (based on 4,207 wells over 20 yr for Hiawatha project, 66% in Wyoming [BLM 2006n]; also 61 wells total for Bitter Creek [BLM 2005e]) 

482 wells/yr (Continental Divide/Creston, 8,850 wells; Desolation Flats, 592 wells; Atlantic Rim, 200 wells; over 20 yr) (Allison 2006) 

~720 

New CBNG wells drilled per year over next 20 yr (2012

2032)b

32 wells/yr (based on 640 total over 20 yr [2001

2020] 

projected by BLM [2008j]) 

Included with oil and gas above 157 wells/yr (Continental 

Divide/Creston, 100 wells; Atlantic Rim, 1,800 wells; Seminole Rd, 1,240 wells; over 20 yr) (Allison 2006) 

~190 

Annual surface disturbance over next 20 yr (2012

2032) 

acres/yrc

462

858 (based on 132 wells/yr) 350

2,100 (based on 

140 wells/yr) 

1,600

9,600 (based on 

640 wells/yr) 

2,400

Wells to be abandoned annually over next 20 yr (2012

2032)d

20

33 wells/yr (15% 

[Easley 2006] to 25%) 

35 wells/yr 160 wells/yr 220

2
TABLE 6.1.6-6 (Cont.) Type of Activity Level of Activity Kemmerer Green River/Rock Springs Great Divide/Rawlins SumOil and Gas (Cont.) Geophysical (seismic) exploration projectse 24 projects per year within the Kemmerer Field Office area (Easley 2006) 3 projects per year: Hay River, South Jonah (subsurface data on 400 mi2), LaBarge 3D (BLM 2004c) 45 projects per year within the Rawlins Field Office area (Allison 2006) 912 

~900tempodistur

Monell enhanced oil recovery project NA A total of 126 wells drilled 2006–012 (80 on non-BLM- administered lands); total initial disturbance 1,100 acres; net disturbance after 2025 yr 260 acres (BLM 2006o) NA Land 

gross

Coal 

Recoverable reserves (million tons) 

66 (BLM 1986) NA (35 for Black Butte Coal Co. 

Pit 14, surface mining site only [BLM 2006c]; 122 for Ten Mile Rim subsurface, includes private [BLM 2004f]) 

2,489 (surface mineable) (BLM 2004e) 

>2,70

Predicted production over next 20 yr (20122032) (million tons/yr) 

45 current; annual 0.8% increase (based on predictions for 20052015 [BLM 2004d]) 

69 (based on projection for 

Sweetwater County through 2010 [Lyman and Jones 2005]). Individual projects, 1.53 tons/yr (permitted for 7) for 20 yr from Black Butte (BLM 2006p); 4.55.5 tons/yr for 1520 yr 

from Ten Mile Rim (BLM 2004f) 

None (Allison 2006) 1014 

Surface area potentially leasable (acres) 

NA 453,000 (30,000 of this already 

leased) (BLM 1997b) 

56,000 (5,000 Carbon Basin only) (BLM 2004e) 

NA (a
TABLE 6.1.6-6 (Cont.) Type of Activity Level of Activity Kemmerer Green River/Rock Springs Great Divide/Rawlins SumCoal (Cont.) Project area (acres) 8,600 (Easley 2006) 4,500 (2,200 at Black Butte [BLM 2006p], 2,242 total at Ten Mile Rim but only 124 disturbed [BLM 2004f]) None (Allison 2006) ~13,0

Subsurface area potentially disturbed (acres) 6,900 (BLM 1986) 2,200 (BLM 2004f) None (Allison 2006) ~9,10

Surface mining area potentially disturbed annually (acres/yr) 430 (project area over 20-yr project duration) 120 (project area over 20-yr project duration) None (Allison 2006) 550 

Sodium/CO2

Known sodium reserves (billion tons) 

114 NA NA NA (a

Sodium production rate over next 20 yr (20122032) (million tons/yr) 

12 (underground minesrate in 

2002, BLM projects no new leasing, permits, or off-lease drilling over life of plan [BLM 2004d]) 

6 (underground mines) (Nara-Kloepper 2006) 

None 18 (al

under

New sodium facilities 2006, subsurface solution mine 

and processing plant (BLM 2004d) 

NA None One s

and p

Sodium production surface disturbance (acres/yr) 

Minimal surface disturbance over next 20 years (Easley 2006) 

Minimal surface disturbance over next 20 years (Nara-Kloepper 2006) 

None Minim

next 2
TABLE 6.1.6-6 (Cont.) Type of Activity Level of Activity Kemmerer Green River/Rock Springs Great Divide/Rawlins SumSodium/CO2 (Cont.) CO2 production Shute Creek Gas Plant, 435 M ft3/day in 2001 (BLM 2004d) None known None known ~160 

year Locatable Minerals (e.g., precious metals/gems, uranium, bentonite) Uranium None projected Uranium production potential low (BLM 2004c) Little, if any, production expected (Allison 2006); reserves, >58 million lb (BLM 2004e) Limit

exploexpec

Magnetite None projected None projected Little, if any, production 

expected (Allison 2006); reserves, ~30 million tons massive ore, 148 million tons disseminated ore (BLM 2004e) 

Limitprodu

Gold Limited deposits have been 

identified; very limited if any activity expected (BLM 2008j) 

Potentially present; current activities disturb less than 5 acres/yr (BLM 2004c) 

Little, if any, production expected (Allison 2006); reserves, >100 million tons of Fe-gold ore at 2868% Fe (BLM 2004e) 

Limitexpecpresen

Diamonds No current production, although 

diamond potential is rated as high (BLM 2004d) 

Potentially present, but not recovered to date (BLM 2004c) 

None projected Limit

produ

Bentonite Known to occur, not produced 

because of co-placement with coal (BLM 2004d) 

None projected None projected Limit

produ
TABLE 6.1.6-6 (Cont.) Type of Activity Level of Activity Kemmerer Green River/Rock Springs Great Divide/Rawlins SumLocatable Minerals (e.g., precious metals/gems, uranium, bentonite) (Cont.) Salable minerals (gravel, sand, clay) Assume 475,000 tons/yr mined (based on 475,283 tons sold in 2002; demand expected to continue [BLM 2004d]); two clay-producing companies, one on private land One 4-acre borrow area for sand and gravel in use; clay uneconomical for production (BLM 2004c) Assume 2.5 million tons/yr mined (based on current contracts that allow 21 million tons over 10 yr (20052014) [BLM 2004e] and anticipated increase [Allison 2006]) NA (>

Energy Development Energy corridors NA NA NA Estim

(186,0substaoffice

Electric generating utilities NA NA NA ~3,60

in the (EIA 

propo(5,930 

Wind power One 80-turbine facility operating 

in Uinta County; other proposals exist (BLM 2008j) 

One 16 turbine facility 

proposed (BLM 2004c) 

One 1,000-turbine facility, to disturb 6,020 acres, 45% to be revegetated, 100 additional acres/yr for miscellaneous (BLM 2004e) 

Wyom1,104 (EIA devel
TABLE 6.1.6-6 (Cont.) Type of Activity Level of Activity Kemmerer Green River/Rock Springs Great Divide/Rawlins SumEnergy Development (Cont.) Pipelines 300 acres/yr short-term disturbance (over <5 yr) from pipelines, all to be reclaimed (Easley 2006) NA Overland Pass Pipeline, 780 mi from Opal Wyoming to Kansas; through all three field offices; would disturb total of 4,619 acres, 2,903 acres farmland; 10 acres surface facilities; employ 325650 workers, 80% nonlocal (BLM 2007f) NA (a

disturconstr

Other Forestry 125 acres/yr (100% reclaimed) NA 300 tons biomass removal/10 yr; 

6,000 trees/yr thinned (BLM 2004e) 

NA (>

Fire management 2,000 acres/yr prescribed burn 

(99% reclaimed) (Easley 2006) 

NA 1,50010,000 acres/yr prescribed 

burn (BLM 2004e) 

NA (>

prescr

Land and realty NA Proposed Haul Road (includes 

6 pipelines and 1 fiber optic cable; ROW = 400 ft construction; 200 ft operations) (BLM 2004c) 

78 acres/yr disturbedditch and 

communications construction (BLM 2004e) 

NA (adistur

Livestock NA 2 projects to increase game fish 

populations (BLM 2004c) 

46 acres/yr (BLM 2004e) NA (l

50 acr

Special management areas, recreation 

NA Recreation activities assumed to 

require 290 wells over 20 years (BLM 2004c) 

480-acre OHV area with 5 mo/yr use (BLM 2004e) 

NA (dtotal) 
TABLE 6.1.6-6 (Cont.) Type of Activity Level of Activity Kemmerer Green River/Rock Springs Great Divide/Rawlins SumOther (Cont.) Vegetation Vegetation manipulation proposed for 82,610 acres (~4,100 acres/yr) to improve wildlife habitat (BLM 1986) New riparian enclosures to mitigate sheep to cattle conversion impacts (BLM 2004c) 16,400 acres/yr treated (BLM 2004e) ~21,0

treate

Noxious/invasive weeds NA NA 8008,000 acres/yr treated NA (a

treate

Soils/watersheds NA Eden/Farson Irrigation Project (supply for 17,000 acres) (BLM 2004c) 25 stream mi restored, 50 groundwater and precipitation monitoring sites NA (v

Abbreviations: AUM = animal unit month; BCF = billion cubic feet; Fe = iron; MB = million barrels; MW = megawatts; NA = information not avail

vehicle; ROW = right-of-way; TCF = trillion cubic feet. 

a Activities listed are those considered in addition to potential oil shale and tar sands development on federal lands. In general, values are rounded b Includes projections for federal lands and, where available, nonfederal lands. c Assumes a range of 2.5 to 15 acres/well for well pads, roads, and pipelines (representative range based on Rawlins, 7 acres/well [BLM 2004e]; R

and Development Report, 5 to 22 acres/well [BLM 2003], Kemmerer, 3.5 to 6.5 acres/well [Easley 2006], Moab Utah Planning Area, 15 acres/w2.5 acres/well [DOE 2006]). The 22 acres/well estimate is not included in the range because it is for deep wells; very few deep wells are planned

d Assumes that 25% of new wells would be abandoned annually (based on estimate provided for the Rawlins Field Office [Allison 2006]). All sur

to be reclaimed within 10 yr of abandonment. 

e Assumes 100 acres disturbed/project. This is short-term disturbance such as crushed vegetation, uprooted brush, and minor soil disturbance; dist

unidentifiable within 1 yr. 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-289 

Offices (see Table 6.1.6-4). Predicted production for all field offices combined is about 

25 million tons/yr. About half of this production would be from surface mines, and half would be 

from underground mines. 

 Other Minerals Development. Metals produced in Colorado include copper (two mines), 

gold (seven mines, 1.2% of U.S. production), lead (two mines), molybdenum (two mines), silver 

(four mines), and zinc (one mine) (EPA 1997). In the ROI counties (i.e., Moffat, Rio Blanco, and 

Garfield), only sand and gravel and sodium bicarbonate are produced. Sand and gravel are 

produced in the Colorado River valley in Garfield County (Widmann 2002), just south of the oil 

shale area, and sodium bicarbonate is produced by Natural Soda, Inc., in Rio Blanco County 

(USGS 2004a). The sodium bicarbonate is solution-mined in the Piceance Basin; the plant 

produced 72,000 tons of sodium bicarbonate in 2004. Currently, uranium and vanadium are 

mined in Montrose County, to the south of the oil shale area. Although there are currently no 

operating mines, it is projected that uranium and vanadium mining would increase in the Grand 

Junction and Little Snake Field Offices over the study period, because there has been a recent 

increase in exploration. 

Energy Development. Table 6.1.6-7 presents the projected miles and total acres of energy 

corridors on federal lands in Colorado designated under the proposed action of the West-wide 

Energy Corridor PEIS (DOE and DOI 2008). As of 2010, there were 6,738 existing ROWS 

crossing public lands in Colorado (BLM 2010a). 

 Table 6.1.6-8 summarizes the electric power–generating units operating in oil shale ROI 

counties in Colorado in 2008, including the primary fuel source for each plant and its electric 

power generating capacity. Of the 1,562 MW of nameplate power available from 24 generating 

units, 90% was from five coal-fired generators. As of 2000, there were also three new plants 

proposed for Colorado with a total generating capacity of 2,840 MW (EPA 2002). 

Other (Grazing, Forestry, Fire Management, and 

Recreation). Prescribed burns are used for fire 

management in the study area; a total of 7,200 acres per 

year are burned under current management practices. The 

BLM manages more than 5 million acres of forest lands in 

Colorado; the majority are in the western half of the state. 

Most (80%) of the forests are woodlands (forests 

dominated by low-stature trees such as pinyon-juniper). 

The net annual growth in forest lands has been estimated as 

29 million ft3 (BLM 2006l); the major causes of tree 

mortality have been insect damage and fires. Timber is 

harvested on BLM lands in the White River and Little 

Snake Field Offices. 

TABLE 6.1.6-7 Energy Corridors 

on Public Lands in the Three-State 

Areaa

Area of Proposed Action 

State mi acres 

 

Colorado 430 261,000 

 

Utah 690 370,000 

 

Wyoming 440 186,000 

a Source: DOE and DOI (2008). 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-290 

TABLE 6.1.6-8 Electric Power–Generating Units in ROI 

Counties in the Three-State Area in 2005a

State 

Primary 

Fuel 

No. of 

Generating Units 

Combined Power 

(MW-nameplate) 

 

Colorado Coal 5 1,414 

 Gas 8 113 

 Oil 3 0.3 

 Water 8 35 

 Total 24 1,562 

 

Utah Coal 9 3,214 

 Waste coal 1 58 

 Water 5 5.4 

 Total 15 3,277 

 

Wyoming Coal 9 3,055 

 Gas 1 1.3 

 Wind 20 552 

 Water 10 99 

 Oil 3 1.9 

 Total 43 3,709 

a ROI counties include Delta, Garfield, Mesa, Moffat, and 

Rio Blanco Counties in Colorado; Carbon, Duchesne, Emery, 

Garfield, Grand, San Juan, Uintah, and Wayne Counties in 

Utah; and Carbon, Lincoln, Sweetwater, and Uinta Counties in 

Wyoming. 

Source: EIA (2011a). 

6.1.6.2.2 Utah 

 Oil Shale and Tar Sands Development. As stated in Section 6.1.6.1.5, in the future 

one PRLA with an area of 4,960 acres may be eligible for oil shale development using 

underground mining techniques, based on the assumption that the RD&D leaseholder can meet 

BLM requirements. In 2009, the BLM issued a second round of solicitations and received one 

new RD&D lease proposal for the Uinta Basin, which is currently being evaluated. In addition, 

an unknown level of oil shale and tar sands development could occur on nonfederal lands in the 

future. Potential tar sands development would predominantly affect resources in Utah in the 

Monticello, Price, Richfield, and Vernal Field Offices, where the STSAs are located. The 

assumptions used for impact-producing factors for a single tar sands facility are given in 

Section 5.1. 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-291 

Oil and Gas Development. In the Utah study area, the largest amount of oil and gas 

production expected over the next 20 years is for the Vernal Planning Area, for which about 

920 wells per year are predicted; the total projected maximum number of new oil and gas wells 

for applicable field offices in the state is about 1,000 wells per year (see Table 6.1.6-5), which 

includes wells on both federal and nonfederal lands (projections for nonfederal lands are not 

available for all field offices). 

Coal Mining. The largest coal reserves are in the Henry Mountain Planning Area, with 

smaller amounts in the San Rafael Planning Area (see Table 6.1.6-5). Predicted production for 

all field offices combined is about 30 to 34 million tons/yr. About half of this production would 

be from surface mines, and half would be from underground mines. 

Other Minerals Development. Metals produced in Utah include copper (one mine), iron 

(two mines), phosphate (one mine), molybdenum (one mine), potash (three mines), silver 

(four mines), and uranium (one mine) (EPA 1997). In the ROI counties (Carbon, Duchesne, 

Emery, Garfield, Grand, San Juan, Uintah, and Wayne), only sand and gravel, gilsonite, clay, 

gypsum, dimension sandstone, lime, helium, and gold are produced (USGS 2004b). Phosphate 

production occurs in the Diamond Mountain area, and gilsonite production in the Book Cliffs 

area. Uranium/vanadium has a high potential for development in the Henry Mountain and San 

Juan Planning Areas; it would result in at least 30 acres/yr of surface disturbance. A limited 

amount of other minerals development is expected (see Table 6.1.6-5). 

Energy Development. Table 6.1.6-7 gives the miles and total acres of energy corridors in 

Utah designated under the West-wide Energy Corridor PEIS (DOE and DOI 2008). As of 2010, 

there were 6,040 existing ROWS crossing public lands in Utah (BLM 2010a). 

 Table 6.1.6-8 summarizes the electric power–generating units operating in oil shale 

ROI counties in Utah in 2008, including the primary fuel source for each plant and its electric 

generating capacity. Of the 3,277 MW of nameplate power available from 15 generating units, 

98% was from nine coal-fired generators. As of 2000, there were also three new generating 

plants proposed for Utah, with a total capacity of 1,570 MW (EPA 2002). 

 Other (Grazing, Forestry, Fire Management, and Recreation). Although information 

is not available for every planning area, at least 13,500 acres/yr are planned to be used for 

prescribed burns under current management practices. Large tracts of land are used for grazing in 

the Monticello Planning Area. 

 The BLM manages more than 8 million acres of forest lands in Utah; the majority are in 

the southern half of the state, including the planning areas addressed in this PEIS. Most (more 

than 90%) of the forests are woodlands. The net annual growth in forest lands has been estimated 

as 9.2 million ft3 (BLM 2006l). The major cause of tree mortality has been fires, followed by 

insect damage. 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-292 

6.1.6.2.3 Wyoming 

 Oil Shale Development. There are no RD&D projects in Wyoming; thus, there are no 

PRLA lands that could be developed. As in Colorado and Wyoming, an unknown level of oil 

shale and tar sands development could occur on nonfederal lands in the future. 

Oil and Gas Development. In the Wyoming study area, it is projected that a large amount 

of new oil and gas drilling and production would occur over the 20-year planning horizon. The 

total number of new oil and gas wells for applicable field offices in the state is projected to be 

910 wells per year, with the largest amount, 635 wells per year, projected for the Great 

Divide/Rawlins Field Office (see Table 6.1.6-6), which includes wells on both federal and 

nonfederal lands (projections for nonfederal lands not available for all field offices). 

Coal Mining. Most of the coal reserves are in the Great Divide/Rawlins Field Office 

(i.e., about 2,500 million tons); however, no coal mining is currently planned in that field office 

over the study period (see Table 6.1.6-6). Predicted production for the Kemmerer and Green 

River/Rock Springs Field Offices is about 10 to 14 million tons/yr. Production from the Black 

Butte Coal Pit would be from surface mines, and production from the Ten Mile Rim area would 

be from underground mines. 

Other Minerals Development. Wyoming is a large producer of uranium (two mines; 

>12% of U.S. production) (EPA 1997). In the ROI counties (Carbon, Lincoln, Sweetwater, and 

Uinta), only sulfur, helium, clay, sand and gravel, crushed stone, and sodium carbonate are 

produced (USGS 2004c). The largest projected development is for salable minerals (sand and 

gravel and clay) in Kemmerer County, which has ongoing production of about 480,000 tons/yr 

of these minerals. A very limited amount of other minerals development is expected 

(see Table 6.1.6-6). 

Energy Development. Table 6.1.6-7 gives the miles and total acres of energy corridors in 

Wyoming designated under the West-wide Energy Corridor PEIS (DOE and DOI 2008). As of 

2010, there were 18,852 existing ROWS crossing public lands in Wyoming (BLM 2010a). 

 Table 6.1.6-8 summarizes the electric power–generating units operating in oil shale ROI 

counties in Wyoming in 2005, including the primary fuel source for each plant and its electricitygenerating capacity. Of the 3,709 MW of nameplate power available from 43 generating units, 

82% was from nine coal-fired generators. As of 2000, there were also nine new generating plants 

proposed for Wyoming, with a total generating capacity of 5,930 MW (EPA 2002). Wyoming 

also currently has a capacity of 1,104 MW of wind power, and more development is expected. 

Extensive short-term disturbance from pipeline construction could occur in association with 

planned projects (see Table 6.1.6-6). 

 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-293 

Other (Grazing, Forestry, Fire Management, and Recreation). The BLM manages only 

about 1.7 million acres of forest lands in Wyoming. Almost half (47%) of the forests are juniper 

pine woodlands. Of Wyoming’s forest lands, a large amount is classified as forest area (forests 

with primarily tall-stature trees such as limber and ponderosa pine) in contrast to woodland area 

(low-stature trees); forest areas make up about 50% of the total forest lands. The net annual 

growth in all forest lands has been estimated as 11 million ft3 (BLM 2006p). The major cause of 

mortality for all tree types has been fires, followed by insect damage; however, insect damage 

caused a higher percentage of mortality in the tall-stature trees. 

 There is a small amount of BLM forest land in the three field offices addressed in this 

PEIS. Approximately 125 acres/yr of forest land is planned to be used for reclamation in the 

Kemmerer Field Office area during the study period. 

 Up to 12,000 acres/yr of planned burning is projected for all the field offices combined. 

Varying amounts of land disturbance are also projected for activities such as the management of 

livestock, recreation, vegetation, and weeds (Table 6.1.6-6). 

6.1.6.3 Cumulative Impacts Assessment for Possible Oil Shale Development That 

Could Occur under Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4 

 As stated above and in Sections 6.1.2, 6.1.3, and 6.1.4, with the possible exception of a 

change in local property values, there would be no environmental or socioeconomic impacts 

under Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 from the amendment of land use plans to identify lands as 

available or not available for application for commercial oil shale leasing. Therefore, there would 

be no cumulative impacts from these alternatives. However, direct, indirect, and cumulative 

impacts could occur as a result of future commercial oil shale development that could be 

facilitated by such land use plan amendments. The focus of this cumulative impacts assessment 

then is the impacts from this future development, rather than the impacts from the land use plan 

amendment decision. That is, the purpose of this cumulative impacts assessment is to discuss, in 

a qualitative way, how the environmental and socioeconomic conditions within the study area 

might be incrementally affected over the next 20 years (the study period) by oil shale 

development that could occur on lands made available for application for commercial leasing by 

the land use plan amendments under Alternatives 1, 2, 3, or 4. 

 Potential impacts on resources associated with a single future commercial oil shale 

facility (whether the facility is on a PRLA associated with an RD&D project, on federal land 

within the footprint of any of the Alternatives, or on nonfederal lands), in conjunction with past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future other actions in the study area, are preliminarily 

assessed in this section. If and when applications to lease oil shale resources for commercial 

development are received and accepted by the BLM, where information is less speculative, a 

reasonably foreseeable development scenario (RFDS) will provide a broad and generalized 

effects analysis for the type and extent of effects from more than one facility. When individual 

project-level plans of development are received, these will provide specific technical information 

for analyzing the cumulative impacts of specific proposed oil shale facilities. 

 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-294 

 6.1.6.3.1 Land Use. Potential land use impacts associated with a single future 

commercial oil shale facility include the exclusion of grazing, recreation, and other mineral 

development land uses from lands used for oil shale development facilities and associated offlease facilities (e.g., employer-provided housing, ROWs, and power plants if needed). Oil shale 

development could also alter the quality of lands with wilderness characteristics. Oil shale 

development facilities would disturb 1,650 to 5,760 acres of public lands for the facilities 

themselves, and up to an additional 8,200 acres of lands for ROWs, employer-provided housing, 

and power plants (locations where these ancillary facilities will be sited are unknown, but they 

are not expected to be on public lands). While the total amount of ground disturbance for an oil 

shale facility using in situ technology could equal that of facilities using mining technologies, the 

surface acreage disturbed at any one time might be considerably less depending on the cycle of 

preparation, production, and reclamation. 

 Table 6.1.6-9 presents estimates of the amount of land needed for other major industrial 

activities in the study area over the 20-year study period. These lands may be federal or 

nonfederal lands. As this table shows, land use in the three-state study area is characterized by an 

extensive amount of industrial activity, which is expected to continue into the future. Depending 

on the number and types of oil shale facilities constructed and operating, future commercial oil 

shale development could contribute a substantial increment to the cumulative land use and 

disturbance impacts. Over a 20-year time horizon, a single oil shale facility could contribute 3 to 

21% of total surface disturbance for the activities considered in each state (i.e., up to about 

14,000 acres for a single oil shale project compared with the range of other disturbances of 

66,000 to 530,000 acres, depending upon the state). If several oil shale leases relatively close to 

one another are eventually granted, this amount of leasing within a small area would result in 

substantial changes in land use in that area. Tar sands development, if it occurs, would also 

contribute to cumulative land disturbance impacts. Note that the projections given in 

Table 6.1.6-9 are very sensitive to the assumptions on amount of disturbance due to oil and gas 

development that will occur in the three states; the particularly large range of possible 

disturbance in Colorado makes the oil and gas land use estimates quite uncertain for Colorado. 

 As discussed in Section 6.1.6.2, public lands currently contain ROWs for short- and longdistance energy transmission. The approved ROD for the Designation of Energy Corridors on 

Bureau of Land Management Administered Lands in the 11 Western States (BLM 2009) 

designated additional regional corridors on public lands for long-distance energy transmission 

ROWs. The ROD amended 92 BLM land use plans, including plans in Colorado, Utah, and 

Wyoming. Within these three states a total of 1,340 mi of long-distance corridors were 

established, of which 1,074 were new corridors and 266 mi were already designated as local 

corridors. Not all lands designated as energy corridors will be developed and/or disturbed; 

however, the percentage of potential disturbance is currently unknown. In each of the three 

states, a portion of these proposed corridors falls within the potential oil shale development area. 

Should these proposed corridors be fully developed for energy-related ROWs, additional land 

use impacts in the region could be substantial. 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-295 

TABLE 6.1.6-9 Summary of Cumulative Long-Term Land Use for Oil Shale Development and 

Other Major Industrial Activities 

Estimated Area Disturbeda

Activity Colorado Utah Wyoming 

 

Existing RD&D leases 1,120 160 0 

 

Commercial oil shale development on federal lands 

or nonfederal lands (acres)b

Up to 14,000 per 

project 

Up to 14,000 per 

project 

Up to 14,000 per 

project 

 

Commercial tar sands development on federal or 

nonfederal lands (acres)c

0 Up to 9,500 per 

project 

0

 

Oil and gas development (acres/yr)d 4,300–26,000 2,600–16,900 2,400–13,000

 

Coal development (acres/yr) 200 25 550

 

Sodium minerals (nahcolite and dawsonite) 

development (acres/yr) 

20 0 0

 

Phosphate development (acres/yr) 0 500 0

 

Proposed power plants (acres)e 5,700 3,100 12,000

 

Annual total by state, excluding oil shale and tar 

sands development (acres)

11,000–33,000 6,000–20,000 15,000–26,000

 

20-year totals, excluding oil shale and tar sands 

development (acres)

96,000–530,000 66,000–350,000 71,000–280,000

 

Three-state total acres disturbed 230,000–1,150,000

 

Single oil shale facility (percentage of 20-year total 

by state)

3–15 4–21 5–20

a Except where otherwise indicated, acreage estimates are the maximum projected totals from Tables 6.1.6-1, 

6.1.6-2, and 6.1.6-3. 

b Acreage estimates represent the maximum possible disturbance for commercial or RD&D projects, which 

includes 4,800 acres for a new electric power–generating plant, if needed by a commercial operation. 

c Acreage estimates represent the maximum possible disturbance for tar sands facilities (see Section 5.1). 

d Acreages may be reduced from these estimates by as much as a factor of 10 due to the trend toward the use 

of multiple-well pads, which allow several directional wells to be drilled from a single pad. 

e The acreages represent the estimated footprint of projected new power plant development in each state as 

discussed in Section 6.1.6.2, assuming that all would be coal-fired plants requiring 3,000 acres per 

1,500 MW of capacity.

 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-296 

 6.1.6.3.2 Soil and Geologic Resources. Oil shale development could result in impacts 

on soil and geologic resources by increasing soil removal, soil compaction, and erosion. Erosion 

of exposed soils could also lead to increased sedimentation of nearby water bodies and to the 

generation of fugitive dust, which could affect local air quality. Project areas would remain 

susceptible to these impacts until completion of construction, mining, oil shale processing, and 

site stabilization and reclamation activities (e.g., revegetation of pipeline ROWs, surface mine 

reclamation). Impacts on soil and geologic resources would be limited to the specific project 

location as well as areas where associated off-site infrastructure (such as access roads, utility 

ROWs, and power plants) would be located. 

 Oil and gas development, other minerals development, tar sands development, and 

construction of additional power plants would cause similar impacts on soil and geologic 

resources in the three-state study area. Table 6.1.6-9 gives estimates of the amount of land that 

could be disturbed for these activities over the 20-year study period. In each state, additional 

types of land use could also disturb soil. These disturbances would include, but not be limited to, 

agricultural development, grazing, recreation, forestry, and residential development. The 

potential impacts from these have not been quantified. Also as discussed in Section 6.1.6.3.1, 

large areas might be designated as energy corridors in each state, and their development would 

also contribute to total soil disturbance. All these activities could result in soil being displaced, 

stockpiled, eroded, or compacted. The disturbance could yield more sediment to surface waters; 

also, in areas with high salinity in the soils, the salt content in surface water could increase. 

 As shown in Section 6.1.6.3.1, impacts on soil and geologic resources from oil shale 

development could add a substantial increment to cumulative impacts on this resource. Impacts 

would increase with increasing numbers of oil shale facilities. A single facility could be 

associated with soil disturbance of up to about 14,000 acres. 

 6.1.6.3.3 Paleontological Resources. Disturbances from oil shale development, in 

combination with other surface- and subsurface-disturbing activities in the region, could uncover 

and/or destroy fossils on BLM-administered land and on other lands. Given the land disturbance 

projected from oil shale facilities and from other activities in the study area during the 20-year 

period (Table 6.1.6-9), it is likely that many sites would require paleontological evaluations and 

mitigation measures. Based on the assumption that these evaluations and mitigation measures are 

conducted in accordance with existing regulations and BLM policies, there would be increased 

knowledge about paleontological resources in the region and increased protection of resources 

based on this knowledge. Adverse cumulative impacts therefore are not expected. 

 6.1.6.3.4 Water Resources. Ground disturbance along ROWs and near construction 

sites, mining sites, access roads, and river crossings could increase sediment and dissolved solid 

loads of streams downstream from disturbed sites. After the protective layers of soils are 

disturbed, the soils become vulnerable to soil erosion by surface runoff. Leaching of mine 

tailings and waste, overburden piles, and source rock piles would potentially bring organic and 

metal contaminants to nearby streams. Potential leaks (or spills) of oil or other petroleum 

products from pipelines are additional risks for contamination of surface water resources. 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-297 

Modification of surface drainage and water extraction could cause flow regime and 

morphological changes of stream channels. Most of the impacts would occur in the vicinity of 

the water bodies close to project sites and would be incremental. Other potential impacts on 

water resources are described in Section 6.1.5.4. 

 If oil and gas development, mining activities, and power plant construction continue to 

grow as projected from 2012 to 2032, the disturbed areas are estimated to increase by a total of 

230,000 to 1,150,000 acres in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming (Table 6.1.6-9). If a single oil shale 

facility is developed, it is projected to contribute about 3% to 15%, 4% to 21%, or 5% to 20% 

additional ground disturbance in Colorado, Utah, or Wyoming, respectively (Table 6.1.6-9). The 

incremental impacts on water resources caused by oil shale development in each state could be 

significant relative to these other activities. While the total amount of ground disturbance from 

oil shale development using in situ technologies could equal that of facilities using mining 

technologies, the surface acreage disturbed at any one time might be considerably less depending 

on the cycle of preparation, production, and reclamation. 

 The water uses and losses in the Upper Colorado Basin states of Colorado, Utah, and 

Wyoming are shown in Figures 6.1.6-1 to 6.1.6-4. From the 1970s to the 1990s, the water uses 

increased, reflecting growth in agricultural and in municipal and industrial water uses 

(Figures 6.1.6-1 and 6.1.6-2, respectively). The export of Colorado River water to outside the 

Upper Colorado River Basin also increased gradually with time (Figure 6.1.6-3). From 1990 to 

2008, the combined water use and losses in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming within the Upper 

Colorado Basin fluctuated between about 3,500 to 4,400 thousand ac-ft/yr (Figure 6.1.6-4). This 

includes water losses from major and minor reservoirs, agricultural, and municipal and industrial 

water uses, and water transfers out of the basin. Fluctuations were primarily due to variation in 

export and declining agricultural water uses) because of drought conditions (BOR 2004, 2005, 

2006, 2010). 

 To preliminarily assess cumulative water use in the study area over the next 20 years 

and the potential impacts of oil shale development, water use projections for oil and gas 

development, coal mining, and power generation were compared with water use for individual 

oil shale facilities and with available water in the Upper Colorado River Basin 

(see Table 6.1.6-10). The sustainable, annually available water in the Upper Colorado River 

Basin was assumed to be 6,000 thousand ac-ft/yr (SWCA 1997) (a prolonged drought condition 

may decrease this water availability). The total amount of legally apportioned water available to 

Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming is 5,280 thousand ac-ft/yr. The water transfer out of the Upper 

Colorado River Basin fluctuates but was assumed to remain in the same range (540 to 

800 thousand ac-ft/yr) for 1990 to 2008 (Figure 6.1.6-3). Also, the currently combined water 

uses for agricultural, municipal, and industrial activities were assumed to remain at the same 

level as those found in 1990 to 2008 (i.e., 3,500 to 4,400 thousand ac-ft/yr; Figure 6.1.6-4). 

 Therefore, currently available water would be between 80 and 1,040 thousand ac-ft/yr in 

the three states. The water requirement for individual commercial oil shale facilities is estimated 

to be about 5 to 35 thousand ac-ft/yr of water, depending on the technology being used, while the 

combined water needed for oil and gas, coal mining, and new power plants would be about 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-298 

FIGURE 6.1.6-1 Agricultural Water Uses in Colorado, Utah, and 

Wyoming in the Upper Colorado River Basin from 1970 through 2008 

(Sources: BOR 2004, 2005, 2006, 2010) 

FIGURE 6.1.6-2 Municipal and Industrial Water Uses in Colorado, Utah, 

and Wyoming in the Upper Colorado River Basin from 1970 through 2008 

(Sources: BOR 2004, 2005, 2006, 2010) 

68 thousand ac-ft/yr (Table 6.1.6-10). Additional water will be needed to support regional 

population growth, potential water exports to areas outside the Upper Colorado River Basin, new 

instream flow water rights for protecting endangered species, and possibly for tar sands 

development. The level of oil shale development that could be supported by available water over 

the next 20 years depends on the type of technology used, the scale of the development, and the 

other competing uses of water at the time of development. Another alternative to make more 

water available is to transfer water from current agricultural use to industrial use. Any water 

transfer and new water development must meet different state and federal regulations. 

Eventually, whether enough water is available for oil shale development depends on the results 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-299 

FIGURE 6.1.6-3 Water Exports from the Upper Colorado River Basin in 

Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming from 1970 through 2008 (Sources: 

BOR 2004, 2005, 2006, 2010) 

FIGURE 6.1.6-4 Combined Water Uses and Losses in Colorado, Utah, and 

Wyoming in the Upper Colorado River Basin from 1970 through 2008 

(Sources: BOR 2004, 2005, 2006, 2010) 

of negotiations among various parties, including water right owners, state and federal agencies, 

and municipal water providers as well as the developers. 

 Meeting the water requirements also depends on how many facilities would be 

constructed, the technologies used, and the location of the sites. For example, the water demand 

in northwestern Colorado is more than twice its water consumption. Though the consumption is 

below the state’s legally allocated water amount as specified by the Upper Colorado River Basin 

Compact, the current water demand already well exceeds the state’s allocation. Alternatively, 

using water conservation practices and transferring agricultural water rights to industrial rights 

(including oil shale development) could make more water available if extensive oil shale 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-300 

TABLE 6.1.6-10 Major Water Uses in the Next 20 Years in the Three-State Study Area 

Compared with Use for Potential Oil Shale Development 

Available Water and Water Use 

Annual Volume 

(1,000 ac-ft/yr) 

 

Amount of legally available water from the Colorado River 5,280

 

Consumptive uses, including export, agricultural, M&I, and evaporation 4,140–5,200

 

Range of net amount available 80–1,140 

 

Water use estimates for oil shale and tar sands 

Commercial oil shale development on federal or nonfederal lands (individual 30,000 

to 50,000 bbl/day in situ facility and ancillary facilities, including power plant)a

 14.0–18.6 

 

Commercial oil shale development on federal or nonfederal lands (individual 25,000 

to 30,000 bbl/day surface mine/surface retort or underground mine/surface retort 

facility and ancillary facilities)a

 2.6–4.6 

 

Commercial tar sands development on federal or nonfederal lands (individual 

20,000 bbl/day tar sands facility)a,b

 <1–5.4 

 

Water use for other development 

 

Oil and gasc 1.6 

 

Coal mining 13.4 

 

Power plantse 53 

 

Total other development 68 

a Includes processing and human consumption (see Table 4.5.2-1). 

b See Table 5.5.2-1. 

c Assumes that 3,000 wells are drilled per year and that each uses 0.55 ac-ft of water. 

d Assumes 82 million tons of production per year; 20 million gal of water per million tons of coal mined 

is assumed for coal preparation and 35 million gal of water per million tons of coal mined is assumed 

for dust control. 

e Assumes a total of 9,940 MW new production from coal-fired power plants; water consumption of 

8,000 ac-ft/yr per 1,500 MW (see Section 6.1.6.1.4).

Sources for water availability: SWCA (1997); BOR (2004, 2005, 2006, 2010).

 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-301 

development is desired. Currently, most of the water use in the Upper Colorado Basin is for 

agricultural purposes. The agricultural component ranges from 55% in the Upper Main Stem 

(Colorado River and its tributaries above the mouth of the Green River) to 87% in the San Juan–

Colorado area (Colorado River and its tributaries below the mouth of the Green River and above 

Lee Ferry, Arizona) (BOR 2004, 2005, 2006). 

 6.1.6.3.5 Air Quality. Air resources in and around the study area would be affected by 

commercial development of oil shale. Local, short-term air quality impacts could be incurred as a 

result of PM and exhaust emission releases during construction activities. Similar short-term 

impacts could also occur in other areas where electric transmission or oil pipeline ROWs and 

other infrastructure would be developed. Longer term impacts on local and regional air quality 

and AQRVs could occur during normal project operations, such as mining; processing of the oil 

shale; and construction and operation of off-lease infrastructure, including electric power plants, 

resulting in emissions of criteria pollutants and HAPs. 

 Oil and gas development, other minerals development, and other activities 

(e.g., agricultural development and residential development) would all involve impacts on local 

air quality during land clearing and construction because of increased PM emissions and exhaust 

emission from construction equipment. There could also be regional impacts on air quality and 

AQRVs if these activities involve long-term emissions of criteria pollutants or HAPs at 

substantial levels. GHG emissions from oil shale development could contribute to climate 

change to some extent. The incremental impact of oil shale development activities on total 

cumulative impacts would be assessed during future site-specific NEPA analyses. 

6.1.6.3.6 Noise. Noise is a transient problem; its impacts do not accumulate in the 

environment as do air and water pollutants. Attenuation mechanisms, such as geometric 

spreading, ground effects, and air absorption, dissipate noise energy within short distances from 

noise sources. In general, except for extremely loud noise, noise can travel only a few miles even 

under nighttime temperature inversion conditions. However, cumulative noise impacts could 

occur with oil shale development on both federal and nonfederal lands, oil and gas development, 

surface and underground mining of coal, production of other minerals, and energy development 

(see Tables 6.1.6-4 through 6.1.6-6); such impacts would depend critically on site-specific 

considerations and the proximity of the operations being considered to each other. The 

cumulative impacts of sufficiently separated noise sources are essentially the same as the noise 

impacts of each source considered separately. 

 Cumulative impacts also depend upon which phases in the lifetime of the sources being 

considered are occurring simultaneously. For example, construction associated with an oil shale 

facility would cause only a slight cumulative increase in the preexisting noise levels associated 

with a pumping station on an oil pipeline, while operation of the oil shale facility could cause a 

large increase over the preexisting levels around the facility and along nearby roads. 

 The construction noise impacts discussed in Section 4.7.1.1 are based on general 

considerations and are applicable to a wide range of construction projects. For many oil shale 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-302 

development projects, the leased area is large enough that noise levels would be below EPA 

guideline levels at the site boundaries or at nearby sensitive receptors. Because of the probable 

large distance between projects, it is unlikely that construction of oil shale facilities will cause a 

substantial incremental increase in noise impacts over those associated with existing and 

reasonably foreseeable future projects. However, the construction of large-scale commercial oil 

shale projects involving drilling of many wells could produce higher noise levels with larger 

cumulative impacts. Also, if oil shale development is close to other projects and construction and 

worker vehicles from both projects use the same roads, there could be cumulative noise increases 

due to increased traffic on local roads. An estimate of cumulative impacts must be made during 

the assessment of site-specific impacts. 

 As noted in Section 4.7.1, adverse noise impacts could be associated with the operation 

of commercial oil shale facilities. Drilling and pumping in oil and gas recovery fields could also 

contribute to high cumulative noise levels, and mining operations could cause high noise levels 

in the vicinity of the mine. If these other activities occur close to oil shale development 

operations, the possibility of substantial cumulative impacts exists; however, these impacts 

cannot be estimated at this time given the lack of quantitative estimates for oil shale facilities and 

the lack of data on specific locations of other development activities. An estimate of cumulative 

impacts must be made during the assessment of site-specific impacts. 

 6.1.6.3.7 Ecological Resources. Cumulative impacts of commercial oil shale 

development on ecological resources in the three-state study area would result from the past, 

present, and future impacts of a wide variety of human activities, including agricultural 

development and production, grazing activities, range management, timber harvest and 

management, residential and commercial development, recreational activities, water resource 

development projects, mineral resource development, and energy development. The current 

status of ecological resources, as described in Section 3.7, reflects the cumulative impacts of past 

and present activities. This section focuses on the potential incremental impacts of the oil shale 

development alternatives and a set of reasonably foreseeable future actions that are expected to 

occur or that could occur over the next 20 years if commercial oil shale projects are developed. 

Reasonably foreseeable future projects include oil and gas development, coal mining, mining of 

metals and minerals, energy transmission, electrical generation, and other activities, such as 

grazing, fire management, forestry, and recreation as described in Section 6.1.6.2. 

 The cumulative impacts of greatest concern to ecological resources in the study area 

include loss or degradation of habitat and habitat fragmentation related to land disturbance; loss 

of individuals in populations (especially those of rare species); and changes in the amount, 

availability, and quality of surface water resources. All other factors described in Section 4.8.1 

have the potential to contribute to cumulative impacts, but their contributions would be relatively 

minor and more localized. 

 Section 6.1.6.2 presents available information on the projected levels of development for 

major activities in the study area. Land disturbance from reasonably foreseeable future projects 

could increase to a total of approximately 1 million acres for the projected 20-year study period 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-303 

in the three-state area of interest (see Table 6.1.6-9). Land disturbance associated with individual 

commercial oil shale facilities could be up to about 14,000 acres. 

 Water depletions associated with reasonably foreseeable future actions over the next 

20 years represent significant increases in cumulative water use in the three-state study area 

(more than 68,000 ac-ft/yr of the 80,000 to 1.1 million ac-ft/yr potentially available). Existing 

water use in the three-state area totals 4.1 to 5.2 million ac-ft/yr. Water consumption associated 

with individual commercial oil shale development facilities would range from 5,000 to 

35,000 ac-ft/yr; water consumption associated with individual commercial tar sands development 

facilities would range from less than 1,000 to 5,400 ac-ft/yr (see Table 6.1.6-10). 

 Cumulative impacts on aquatic resources; plant communities and habitats; wildlife; and 

threatened, endangered, and sensitive species are discussed below. 

 Aquatic Resources. The analysis of cumulative impacts on aquatic habitats and the 

organisms that inhabit those habitats considered the potential impacts of oil shale development in 

Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming, together with impacts from other anticipated development 

activities, as described in Section 6.1.6.2. The types of factors associated with these activities 

would be similar to those described in Section 4.8.1.1 for the direct and indirect effects of oil 

shale development, including (1) direct disturbance of aquatic habitats; (2) sedimentation of 

aquatic habitats as a consequence of soil erosion from nearby areas; (3) changes in water 

quantity or water quality as a result of changes in surface runoff patterns, depletions or 

discharges of water into nearby aquatic habitats, or releases of contaminants into nearby aquatic 

systems; or (4) changes in human access to aquatic habitats. 

 Direct disturbance of aquatic habitats could result from activities that occur within water 

bodies or within the active channel of streams and rivers. Such disturbance could occur as a 

result of mineral (e.g., gravel) extraction from streambeds; construction of stream crossings for 

pipelines, transmission lines, and roads; driving vehicles through or using heavy machinery 

within active channels; and from livestock that walk through waterways. There is a potential for 

all these activities to occur within oil shale areas, although it is generally anticipated that the 

related impacts would be relatively small and localized. Activities such as oil and gas 

development, mining, energy development, grazing, fires and fire management, and logging 

would affect erosion potential by disturbing soils and removing or altering vegetated cover. Such 

activities associated with other future projects are expected to result in a considerable increase in 

land disturbance over the 20-year project time frame in the three-state area and could result in a 

considerable increase in sediments entering aquatic habitats. 

 As described in Section 4.8.1.1, construction activities for oil shale development could 

also directly disturb aquatic habitats and alter the potential for erosion and sedimentation within 

affected areas, depending upon the specific locations of leased parcels, the routes selected for 

transmission lines, roads, and pipelines, and the configuration of structures used for crossing 

those habitats. Although the direct disturbance and sedimentation of aquatic habitats resulting 

from oil shale development would likely be somewhat localized, such development could 

contribute substantially to the cumulative level of such impacts within affected watersheds.
Final OSTS PEIS 6-304 

 In the absence of project-specific information, it was assumed that the potential for direct 

habitat disturbance and soil erosion and the resulting sediment loading of nearby aquatic habitats 

is proportional to the amount of surface disturbance, the condition of disturbed lands at any given 

time, the proximity to aquatic habitats, and measures implemented to control erosion and 

sedimentation. Individual oil shale projects would contribute substantially to additional surface 

disturbance over the 20-year development period, compared with other activities planned within 

the evaluated oil shale regions, depending on location and size. 

 Activities within stream channels and the construction or placement of roads, culverts, 

and water diversion devices across or in waterways have a potential to fragment aquatic habitats 

by blocking upstream or downstream movements of aquatic organisms as identified in 

Section 4.8.1.1. From a cumulative standpoint, some roadways, dams, water diversion devices, 

pipeline crossings, and other structures associated with existing development activities in the 

drainages associated with the oil shale basins may already contribute to such habitat 

fragmentation, and a large increase in such infrastructure would likely increase aquatic habitat 

fragmentation in the future. Areas surrounding and within the oil shale areas for which future 

allocation alternatives are being considered in this PEIS currently contain a large proportion of 

oil and gas wells, and the associated structures (such as roads and pipelines) that occur within the 

overall Colorado and Green River Basins and the addition of oil shale development would be 

expected to further increase such fragmentation. The application of appropriate mitigation 

measures, such as controls on the designs of stream crossings, would reduce the potential for 

significant cumulative impacts to occur. 

 From a cumulative perspective, water quality within the oil shale regions would also be 

affected by many human activities that introduce excess nutrients or contaminants into water 

bodies, including oil and gas development, coal mining, construction of additional power plants, 

and grazing of livestock. Oil shale development has the potential to contribute to degradation of 

water quality through the introduction of contaminants, either as leachate from spent oil shale or 

from spills or releases of oil, lubricants, and herbicides. 

 Within the arid regions of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming where oil shale development 

would occur, water availability is of great concern and results in conflicts over balancing water 

needs for current and future development with water needed to maintain ecological conditions in 

aquatic habitats. The anticipated water needs for individual oil shale production facilities would 

range from 5,000 to 35,000 ac-ft/yr. One or more oil shale facilities utilizing amounts of water at 

the higher end of the range could certainly contribute substantially to adverse cumulative impacts 

on water availability. 

 Cumulative impacts on fisheries could result from increased public access to remote areas 

via newly constructed access roads and utility corridors and from the increased population levels 

likely to occur over the 20-year project period as a combined result of reasonably foreseeable 

actions. As discussed in Section 6.1.6.3.11, substantial increases in population within the oil 

shale regions are projected over the next 20 years. Each state in the ROI (Colorado, Utah, and 

Wyoming) has designated management authority for fishery resources to the state’s fish and 

wildlife agency. As part of their management activities, these agencies routinely monitor the 

condition of specific fisheries within the state and establish and enforce regulations to 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-305 

maintain or improve the condition of those fisheries. Examples of regulations include limits on 

open fishing seasons and on the numbers, sizes, and species of fish that can be harvested from 

specific bodies of water. On the basis of the assumption that the effects of such regulations are 

monitored and adjusted effectively, the overall incremental and cumulative impacts on fishery 

resources with increased access due to potential oil shale and other development would be 

expected to be minor. 

 Plant Communities and Habitats. Since the 1700s, wetland habitats have been severely 

impacted throughout the lower 48 states, including Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming, as a result of 

drainage and fill activities associated with agriculture, resource extraction, urban development, 

and other human activities. From the 1780s to 1980s, wetland losses in Colorado have been 

estimated to be approximately 50%, with 30% losses in Utah and 38% losses in Wyoming. 

However, the rate of loss is currently much lower than historic levels (Dahl 1990). Over the past 

several decades, federal agencies, such as the BLM, and state and private organizations have 

made considerable efforts to protect and restore wetlands and riparian habitats, and ongoing and 

planned wetland and riparian management programs are expected to continue to contribute to the 

improvement in wetland and riparian habitat function (BLM 2005f). 

 Human activities have also had an impact on terrestrial habitats in Colorado, Utah, and 

Wyoming for many years. Species composition and diversity have been affected by fire 

suppression, heavy grazing, introduction of invasive species, and other factors (BLM 2005f). 

Habitat losses, fragmentation, and degradation have historically resulted from oil and gas 

development, mining, and other resource extraction activities that disturb surface soils. Although 

the BLM and other land management agencies have made considerable advances in habitat 

protection and restoration, ongoing resource extraction and other land uses are expected to 

continue to result in losses or changes to plant communities and habitats. 

 The factors that would affect plant communities and habitats as a result of oil shale 

development activities are also associated with a number of other activities that occur both 

within and outside of the oil shale basins. The ecoregions and associated plant communities that 

include the oil shale basins extend well beyond the basin boundaries, and activities that occur 

outside the basins can also affect these habitats. Direct losses of habitat could occur as a result of 

oil and gas development, coal mining, mining of metals and minerals, energy development, and 

other activities. Approximately 1 million acres could be directly impacted by these future 

development activities. Native plant communities could also be indirectly impacted or degraded 

by these activities. Changes in water quality, surface water or groundwater flows, or air quality 

could adversely affect terrestrial or wetland plant communities, and changes in community 

characteristics, such as species composition or distribution, could result from vegetation 

disturbances related to some activities, such as grazing. Commercial oil shale development 

would constitute a substantial incremental increase to the impacts associated with other 

foreseeable activities. 

 Wildlife. This section evaluates the potential cumulative impacts of oil shale development 

on wildlife. The current status of wildlife and their habitats, as described in Section 3.7.3, reflects 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-306 

the cumulative impacts of past and present activities. This section focuses on the incremental 

impacts of oil shale development alternatives and a set of reasonably foreseeable federal and 

nonfederal activities, as described in Section 6.1.6.2, which could occur over the 20-year study 

period. In addition to these activities, natural events (e.g., floods, drought, and fires), disease, 

predation, and fluctuations in prey are among the natural phenomena that contribute to 

cumulative impacts on wildlife. 

 In general, the types of cumulative impacts on wildlife would be similar to the direct and 

indirect impacts associated with oil shale development (Section 4.8.1.3). Thus, cumulative 

impacts on wildlife resources would include (1) habitat loss, alteration, or fragmentation; 

(2) disturbance or displacement; (3) mortality; (4) obstruction to movement; and (5) exposure to 

contaminants. The effects of these actions could include (1) immediate physical injury or death; 

(2) increased energy expenditures or changes in physiological condition that could reduce 

survival or reproduction rates; or (3) long-term changes in behavior, including the traditional use 

of ranges. Potential differences between cumulative impacts on wildlife and impacts arising from 

oil shale development activities alone would depend on the intensity (magnitude), scale 

(geographic area), duration, timing, and frequency of development activities. Although habitat 

protection and restoration activities are incorporated into most projects, some losses or 

modifications to habitats are expected from most activities. Even without the potential impacts of 

commercial oil shale development, the projected major increases in land disturbance and water 

depletions resulting from other reasonably foreseeable future activities, taken together with the 

impacts of past and present actions, could result in significant cumulative impacts on wildlife. 

 Cumulative impacts of greatest concern to wildlife and their habitats include loss or 

degradation of habitat and habitat fragmentation related to land disturbance and changes in the 

availability and quality of surface water resources. The cumulative effects of numerous land use 

activities (e.g., livestock grazing, crop production, and energy development and associated 

infrastructure) have caused widespread habitat loss and fragmentation of sagebrush ecosystems 

(Knick et al. 2003). The avoidance by wildlife of areas near industrial developments that might 

otherwise be usable habitat (i.e., functional habitat loss) also contributes to the cumulative loss of 

habitat associated with facility development. Also, developments could further obstruct wildlife 

movements. Habitat loss and fragmentation can be particularly devastating to sagebrushdependent species such as sage-grouse and to big game species or other wildlife that have large 

home ranges or that make annual migrations among various habitats. Factors can act 

synergistically, compounding the importance of cumulative impacts. For instance, developments 

could result in extensive fragmentation that leaves only small, isolated areas of native vegetation. 

These areas are often more prone to invasive plant species and to grazing by livestock, wild 

horses, or feral animals (BLM 2007g; Hobbs 2001). 

 Wildlife disturbance and mortality associated with activities such as recreation also could 

have significant and widespread impacts because of the high number of recreation use days. For 

example, more than 1.3 million visitor days were spent hunting, and nearly 1.6 million visitor 

days were spent snowmobiling or other winter motorized traveling on BLM-administered lands 

within Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming during FY 2004 (BLM 2007g). The other factors 

discussed above have the potential to contribute to cumulative impacts; their contribution, 

however, would be relatively minor and more localized. 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-307 

 Other industrial developments could result in more workers within remote areas and 

increased public access due to new roads and ROWs. Increased access could result in increased 

hunting pressure and illegal poaching depending on location and extent of the developments. 

Repeated intrusions (e.g., from recreationists) within a specific area have been shown to cause 

progressive declines in avian richness and abundance (Riffell et al. 1996). Traffic associated with 

industrial activities and recreation could result in additional roadkills. Also, structures associated 

with other industrial activities could increase the number of bird collisions. Increased densities of 

predators and scavengers attracted to areas of human activity could result in increased predation 

pressure on prey populations. Increased predation would be in addition to impacts associated 

with habitat loss, displacement, roadkills, collisions with structures and transmission lines, and 

other factors. 

 Site-specific mitigation, standard operating procedures, wildlife-related stipulations, 

reclamation and rehabilitation, and monitoring would minimize cumulative impacts and/or 

benefit wildlife and their habitats (BLM 2007g, 2006j; DOI and USDA 2006; WGFD 2004). 

These measures would reduce the contribution of oil shale impacts to cumulative impacts 

throughout the project area. Also, implementation of state comprehensive wildlife conservation 

strategies and regional conservation plans would provide means of proactively minimizing 

cumulative impacts on wildlife and their habitats. For example, some of these plans identify 

areas where habitat is critical for the continued viability of key species and communities and 

areas where development can occur with lower risk to the welfare of ecosystems (Jones et al. 

2004). The plans also present means of restoring and maintaining the health and function of 

lands within the study region. Management of game populations and enforcement of hunting 

laws has reduced the risk of declines in the number of game species compared with historic 

levels (BLM 2007g). 

 Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species. In general, the cumulative impacts on 

threatened, endangered, and sensitive species would be similar to those described for other 

ecological resources. However, for many of the species, there would be a difference in the 

potential consequence of the impacts. Because of their small populations, threatened, 

endangered, and sensitive species would be far more vulnerable to impacts than more common 

and widespread species. 

 The current status and distribution of ESA-listed species, BLM-designated sensitive 

species, and state-listed species are presented in Section 3.7.4. Current status and distribution 

reflect the cumulative effects of past and present human activities and natural limiting factors. 

Some species are considered threatened, endangered, or sensitive in the area because cumulative 

impacts have resulted in a reduction in numbers, which has increased the chances the species 

would become extinct in the near future (e.g., black-footed ferret, Canada lynx, and whooping 

crane). Other species (e.g., Graham’s beardtongue and Dudley Bluffs bladderpod) are considered 

vulnerable because their specific ecological requirements result in limited distributions and 

smaller population sizes, which are less resilient. For either group of species, any incremental 

addition to cumulative impacts could be considered significant. 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-308 

 The potential direct and indirect impacts of commercial oil shale development on 

threatened, endangered, and sensitive species are listed in Table 4.8.1-4 and discussed in 

Section 4.8.1.4. The evaluation indicates the potential for adverse impacts for most of the species 

in the study area. Potential contributions to cumulative impact are associated with direct effects 

(e.g., vegetation clearing, habitat fragmentation, and water depletion) and indirect effects 

(e.g., sedimentation from runoff, fugitive dust, and disruption of groundwater flow patterns). 

Even without the potential impacts of commercial oil shale development, the projected major 

increases in land disturbance and water depletions resulting from other reasonably foreseeable 

future activities, taken together with the impacts of past and present actions, could result in 

significant cumulative impacts on these species. 

 Each alternative would require adherence to BLM policy on the protection of sensitive 

species and appropriate project-specific ESA Section 7 consultation with the USFWS. These 

latter consultations must include a consideration of cumulative effects on listed species under the 

ESA. Adherence to BLM policy and consultation with the USFWS are expected to reduce, but 

not eliminate, the contribution of commercial oil shale development to cumulative impacts under 

both NEPA and the ESA. 

 6.1.6.3.8 Visual Resources. The construction and operation of commercial oil shale 

projects that may occur on federal and nonfederal lands in Utah, Colorado, and Wyoming would 

likely have cumulative visual impacts in the context of other development activities under way in 

the three-state study area, as described in Section 6.1.5.8. These development activities could 

have large visual impacts on locations where concentrated development activity occurred. Where 

construction and operation of a commercial oil shale project occurred in the same areas as these 

other development activities, the visual absorption capability of some landscapes might be 

exceeded. Incremental visual impacts could be of particular concern where oil shale facilities, 

related infrastructure, and other development activities would be located near sensitive visual 

resources in landscapes with low visual absorption capability, and/or where the oil shale and 

other development would be located in the viewsheds of visually sensitive linear features, such 

as scenic/historic trails, highways, or scenic rivers. Careful facility siting and application of 

mitigation measures along with conformance with BLM VRM classes would protect visual 

values in more sensitive areas from large impacts associated directly with oil shale development 

projects. However, the accumulation of small impacts from oil shale projects, together with 

impacts from other development activities, could potentially degrade visual qualities. For VRM 

Classes I through III, the classifications would likely change; Class IV areas would likely 

degrade further. Also, the VRM classes of surrounding areas within view of the facilities may 

change. 

 Further cumulative visual impacts could occur because the presence of oil shale projects 

would likely bring workers and their families to live in local communities and recreate in the 

surrounding areas, and because the roads and other infrastructure associated with oil shale 

development projects could cause increased visitation and usage of remote areas (e.g., OHV 

use). The increases in population and access could result in urbanized development that would 

contrast sharply with more natural-appearing existing landscapes, add to visual clutter around 

existing urbanized areas, increase visible human and vehicular activity in remote areas, degrade 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-309 

air quality (thereby negatively affecting long-distance views), and result in litter, erosion, and 

other visual changes that would not harmonize with the naturally occurring forms, lines, colors, 

and textures of existing landscapes. 

 6.1.6.3.9 Cultural Resources. Disturbances from oil shale development, combined with 

other surface-disturbing development activities, could uncover and/or destroy cultural resources 

on BLM-administered land and on other lands. Given the surface disturbance from oil shale 

development and from other activities (Table 6.1.6-9) projected in the study area during the 

20-year study period, it is likely that many locations would require cultural resource evaluations 

and mitigations. Assuming that these evaluations and mitigations are conducted in accordance 

with existing regulations, there would be an increased knowledge about cultural resources in the 

region. However, there would inevitably be some loss of information about individual sites. 

Unless a concentration of unique resources was found to exist within a small area and that area 

was the location of oil shale development, these individual site losses from construction and 

operation of an oil shale facility would be unlikely to have a major incremental adverse impact 

on cultural resources in the area. 

 6.1.6.3.10 Indian Tribal Concerns. Oil shale development, combined with other 

development activities, could destroy, damage, or degrade resources important to Native 

Americans. Surface-disturbing activities could destroy or damage archaeological sites and 

burials (see Section 6.1.6.3.9) and plant, animal (see Section 6.1.6.3.7), mineral, and water 

resources important to Indian tribal culture and religious practices. The very presence of 

industrial development facilities could result in visual (see Section 6.1.6.3.8) and auditory 

(see Section 6.1.6.3.6) intrusions into sacred locations, landscapes, and viewsheds important to 

Indian tribes. The extent to which these resources would be disturbed would be dependent on 

their location relative to development. Given the amount of development projected for the study 

area in the next 20 years, it is likely that resources important to Native Americans could be 

affected. The incremental adverse effect of the construction and operation of an oil shale facility 

on these resources would depend on site-specific factors. Consultation with affected federally 

recognized tribes by the BLM and oil shale developers could result in the avoidance or 

amelioration of adverse effects. A major incremental impact on resources important to Native 

Americans from the construction and operation of an oil shale facility in the area is unlikely. 

 6.1.6.3.11 Socioeconomics. Economic impacts can be measured in terms of changes in 

employment in the three-state study area in which oil shale resources are located. Because of 

the relative economic importance of oil shale development in small rural economies, and the 

consequent lack of available local labor and economic infrastructure, oil shale development 

could mean a large influx of population. As population increases are likely to be rapid, with local 

communities unable to quickly absorb new residents, there would also be impacts on housing, 

local governments budgets, public infrastructure, social services, law enforcement, and other 

community impacts in the three-state study area. 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-310 

 The impacts of oil shale developments would include (1) wage and salary expenditures 

associated with the construction and operation of oil shale facilities and power plants, 

(2) material procurement and wage and salary expenditures associated with the construction of 

temporary housing in the ROI for oil shale facility and power plant workers and family members, 

and (3) wage and salary spending associated with indirect workers required to provide goods and 

services resulting from increases in economic activity in each ROI with oil shale development. 

Overall, oil shale development could produce a substantial number of jobs, depending on the 

scale of development (e.g., for an individual facility, about 80 to 320 jobs during the construction 

of temporary housing; 350 to 1,200 jobs during construction; and 130 to 1,680 jobs during 

operation, depending on the technology used, see Table 4.11.1-1). 

 Population in-migration would also occur with oil shale resource development; workers 

would be required to move into the three-state region during construction and operation of oil 

shale and power plant facilities. Workers would also be required to move into the region to 

facilitate the demand for goods and services resulting from the spending of oil shale, power 

plant, and housing construction worker wages and salaries. 

 Substantial natural gas–related employment is projected for the area in western Colorado 

including Mesa County, Moffat County, Rio Blanco County, and Garfield County in 2010, with 

more than 8,000 direct energy sector jobs and more than an estimated 22,000 total (direct and 

indirect) jobs generated beginning in 2015, and in each year through 2027 (BBC 

Consulting 2008). Development of natural gas and coal resources elsewhere in the three-state 

area is also expected to produce a substantial number of jobs. It is not known whether 

development of oil and gas and coal resources in the three-state region would require the 

in-migration of construction and operations workers, or the construction of additional temporary 

housing. 

 Rapid population growth in small rural communities hosting large resource development 

projects could also produce social and psychological disruption, together with the undermining 

of established community social structures (see Section 4.12.1.2). Various studies have 

suggested that social disruption may occur in small rural communities when annual population 

increases are 5% to 15% (see Section 4.12.1.3). 

 On the basis of employment estimates given above, reasonably foreseeable oil and gas 

and coal production in the study area is estimated to have a larger socioeconomic impact than a 

single oil shale facility. However, depending on the future level of oil shale development and 

given the estimated population increases due to construction and operation of a single oil shale 

facility, there may be substantial incremental socioeconomic impacts (e.g., interruption of 

community services, availability of housing, social disruption, decreases in property value, loss 

of employment and income in the recreation sector) from oil shale development when considered 

in conjunction with the other ongoing and reasonably foreseeable activities in the study area. 

 Cumulative impacts on transportation systems and traffic levels would be related to both 

employment and freight requirements to service projects. Overall, oil shale development could 

produce a substantial number of jobs, depending on the scale of development. Transportation 

impacts would be additive to other activities on private and public lands. Substantial increases in 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-311 

traffic flow and in transportation infrastructure maintenance requirements to support oil shale 

operations would be expected. 

 6.1.6.3.12 Environmental Justice. Construction and operation of oil shale facilities, 

employer-provided housing, and power plants (if required) could affect environmental justice if 

any adverse health and environmental impacts resulting from either phase of development were 

large and if these impacts disproportionately affected minority and low-income populations. 

Disproportionality is determined by comparing the proximity of high and adverse impacts on the 

locations of low-income and minority populations. As described in Sections 6.1.6.3.1 through 

6.1.6.3.11, oil shale development in conjunction with other ongoing and reasonably foreseeable 

activities could potentially have high and adverse effects on several resources, including local 

demographics, social structures, property values, noise, landscape views, land use, water quality, 

and air quality. 

 In each of the three states potentially hosting oil shale development are a number 

of census block groups with low-income and minority populations, where the minority 

population exceeds 50% of the total population in each block group and where the minority share 

of total block group population exceeds the state average by more than 20 percentage points 

(see Section 3.12). Given the potential for high and adverse incremental impacts on a number of 

resource areas from oil shale development in conjunction with oil, gas, coal, and potential tar 

sands development, and given the existence of environmental justice populations in each state, 

impacts on these resources could disproportionately affect minority and low-income populations. 

Of particular importance would be the impact of large increases in population in small rural 

communities on social disruption, the undermining of local community social structures, and the 

resulting deterioration in quality of life. The impacts of facility operations on water quality and 

on the demand for water in the region could also be important. Impacts on low-income and 

minority populations could also occur with the development of transmission lines associated 

with oil shale and power plant facilities in each state, depending on the locations of these 

infrastructures. Land use and visual environmental justice impacts might be significant, 

depending on the locations of land parcels affected by all these activities. Cumulative impacts on 

environmental justice would be evaluated in future NEPA analyses when the locations and sizes 

of the projects in relation to low-income and minority populations are known. 

 6.1.6.3.13 Hazardous Materials and Waste Management 

 Wastes Associated with Oil and Gas Development. Oil and gas development can involve 

three basic stages: exploration, well development, and production. Exploring, locating, and 

characterizing the petroleum resource can involve the installation of a relatively small number of 

small-bore wells to collect geologic cores for inspection and analysis. Increasingly, exploration is 

conducted with nonintrusive technologies, and wastes associated with exploration are limited and 

inconsequential. 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-312 

 Well development produces the greatest volume and array of wastes. Wells drilled on 

BLM-administered lands would be subject to the requirements and BMPs contained in the 

BLM’s Gold Book (DOI and USDA 2006) and to any additional requirements established as 

lease stipulations by the BLM field office. It is expected that waste management for wells 

installed on private property would be in accordance with accepted industry practice. Each well 

installed would generate well development fluid wastes and waste cuttings, some of which could 

be contaminated with oil from the formation being exploited. However, unless the well 

progressed through previously contaminated subsurface zones or encountered contaminated 

groundwater, the waste typically associated with well installation would not exhibit hazardous 

characteristics and would most likely be managed according to standard practices. 

 Well development fluids16 would be collected on-site for reuse and/or disposal; free 

water would be separated from development fluids; drilling muds would be verified as being free 

of unexpected contamination and released to the ground surface; drilling muds such as bentonite 

clays would be accumulated on-site for recovery and reuse; and drill cuttings would be verified 

as being free of contamination and disposed of at the land surface, usually in the vicinity of the 

well.17 Special management would be required for development fluids, drilling muds, and 

produced water that exhibited contamination from naturally occurring radioactive materials 

(NORM) or brackish characteristics. All NORM-contaminated wastes would be collected and 

delivered to properly permitted treatment and disposal facilities. Brackish water would be either 

reinjected down the well (or an injection well) or collected for delivery to treatment facilities. 

Likewise, downhole equipment removed from the well and found to have NORM contamination 

would be managed in the same manner. It is assumed that all the drill rigs used for well 

development would be portable and would not undergo routine servicing (except for 

maintenance of fluid levels) at the well site. No wastes associated with drill rig operation and 

maintenance (e.g., maintenance of the rig’s diesel engine) would be expected to be generated at 

wellheads, but they might be generated elsewhere in the study area where the rigs are serviced. 

 Products recovered from oil and gas wells are typically complex mixtures of oil, 

hydrocarbon gases, other gases such as H2S, water, suspended solids such as sand and silt, 

chemicals injected to enhance recovery, and water/oil emulsions. Actions to separate these 

phases are performed at the wellhead or at a central processing facility. 

 

16 Well development fluids are water-based (most frequently used), petroleum-based (used primarily in very deep 

wells where high temperatures may be encountered [usually >10,000 ft], or in directional drilling where greater 

lubricity is required for the drill bit), or they are composed entirely of synthetic chemicals (e.g., linear alkyl 

olefins, synthetic paraffins, and alkybenzenes). These fluids perform a number of functions, including cooling 

and lubricating the drill bit, carrying cuttings up the borehole to the surface, and temporarily filling the well bore 

with material that is sufficiently dense to prevent the premature inflow of groundwater, other fluids (e.g., oil), or 

subsurface materials that would collapse the borehole before casings are installed. Development fluids also 

typically contain various other chemicals, such as naturally occurring clays (referred to as drilling muds), 

dispersants, corrosion inhibitors, flocculants, surfactants, and biocides, to enhance their overall performance. 

17 Although drill cuttings are, in most cases, nonhazardous, care must nevertheless be exercised in their disposal so 

as not to significantly alter surface drainage patterns or release sediments to area surface waters. 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-313 

 Oil and gas formation fracturing also produces large volumes of liquids wastes. 

Fracturing (known as “fracking” in the oil and gas industry) is a process that uses high hydraulic 

pressure to crack the hydrocarbon-containing formation. This process increases the flow rate and 

volume of hydrocarbon fluids that move from the producing formation into the wellbore and aids 

extraction of oil and gas deposits that might otherwise be left behind. Hydraulic fracturing is a 

60-year-old process that is now being used more commonly as a result of advanced technology. 

 Fracturing fluids carry sand or other small particles of material (proppants) into the newly 

created crevices to keep the fractures open when the pressure is relieved. Hydraulic fracturing 

fluids generally consist of 90% water, 9.5% sand, and 0.5% chemical additives. The chemicals 

are used to enhance fracturing and to protect the well integrity (API 2010). As many as 750 

different chemicals were used by the oil and gas industry for hydraulic fracturing between 2005 

and 2009. A list of chemicals used is provided in Chemicals Used in Hydraulic Fracturing, 

prepared by the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce (2011). On 

May 11, 2012, the BLM published in the Federal Register a proposed rule that would require 

public disclosure of chemicals used during hydraulic fracturing after fracturing operations have 

been completed (77 FR 27691). 

 To protect groundwater from potential contamination from oil and gas drilling on public 

lands, including fracking operations, the BLM approves and regulates all drilling and completion 

operations, and related surface disturbance. Prior to approving a drilling permit, a BLM geologist 

identifies all potential subsurface formations that will be penetrated by the wellbore and provides 

that information to a BLM petroleum engineer, who reviews proposed casing and cementing 

programs. During drilling, the BLM is on location during the casing and cementing of the 

groundwater surface and other critical intervals. 

 The 2005 Energy Policy Act exempted the injection of fracking fluids from the Safe 

Drinking Water Act’s Underground Injection Control Program. The Act, however, did allow the 

EPA to continue regulating the use of diesel fuel in fracking fluids. In addition, the EPA is 

studying the potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water resources while 

developing permitting guidance. A database of BMPs for hydraulic fracturing is available on the 

Intermountain Oil and Gas BMP Project Web site (University of Colorado Law School 2011). 

 Onshore Order No. 2 details national standards for levels of performance expected from 

lessees and operators when conducting drilling operations on federal and Indian lands, including 

casing and cementing requirements to ensure well integrity. The BLM’s casing and cementing 

programs are conducted such that they protect and/or isolate all usable water zones, lost 

circulation zones, abnormally pressured zones, and any prospectively valuable deposits of 

minerals. The State of Colorado, through the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission 

(COGCC), has established regulations that require wells to be cased with steel pipe and the 

casing to be surrounded by cement to create a hydraulic seal with the well bore. About 95% of 

new oil and gas wells in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming are fractured. The majority of fluids used 

in the fracturing process are recycled, and no fluids are sent to wastewater treatment plants. Of 

the remaining fluids, 60% goes into deep waste injection wells, 20% evaporates from lined pits, 

and 20% is discharged as usable surface water under permits from the Colorado Water Quality 

Control Commission (BLM 2011b). 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-314 

 As of September 2010, the Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (WOGCC) 

required disclosure of the types and amounts of chemicals used in fracking operations 

(University of Colorado Law School 2011). In Utah, oil and gas development would be subject 

to ongoing groundwater protections as outlined in BLM Instruction Memorandum UT 2010-055, 

Protection of Ground Water Associated with Oil and Gas Leasing, Exploration and Development

(BLM 2010c). 

 Produced water (water recovered from the oil- or gas-bearing formations or other 

subsurface formations) is by far the largest volume of waste produced during well production. 

Produced water is typically discharged back down the well or through a second injection well 

completed in the same formation. Produced water can also be used for nonpotable purposes such 

as fugitive dust control, provided it is free of contamination from polar organics (e.g., benzene, 

naphthalene, toluene, phenanthrene), inorganics (e.g., lead, arsenic, sulfide), or NORM, and 

provided it exhibits no brackish characteristics. Produced water can also require special 

management because of high concentrations of sodium, chloride, calcium, or magnesium. 

Discharge of high-salinity waters to the ground surface or surface waters would be prohibited, 

and capture and treatment or reinjection would be required. 

 The exact natures and volumes of well development-related wastes would depend on 

numerous site-specific factors; however, reliable approximations are possible. It is estimated that 

each well installed would result in the generation of an average of 4,100 bbl (172,200 gal) of 

well development fluids (DOE 2006). Over the study period, it is projected that many oil and gas 

wells would be installed in the study area, resulting in the generation of large volumes of 

development fluids and produced water. Some oil shale facilities might also generate large 

volumes of well-development wastes. If all the wastes are managed appropriately, incremental 

cumulative impacts from disposal of these wastes should be minimal. 

 Wastes Associated with Mining of Coal and Other Minerals. Wastes associated with 

coal mining include landscape wastes from clearing active mine areas, solid industrial wastes 

resulting from the maintenance and repair of mining equipment, overburden soils (topsoils and 

subsoils) removed to gain access to the coal resource,18 and domestic solid wastes resulting from 

support of the workforce,19 produced water, and wastes from coal preparation (e.g., shale, coal 

fines, and other impurities). Produced water would likely require treatment as a result of the 

leaching of metals from the coal resource or to adjust its pH. Treatment might result in the 

generation of metal-bearing sludge that would require off-site disposal in most instances. Coal 

 

18 Although overburden must be managed carefully to avoid adverse impacts (primarily increased sediment loading 

to area surface water bodies as a result of erosion), it is not considered a waste; it is typically stockpiled over the 

active life of the coal mining operation and replaced (in the order of the original soil horizon) as part of mine 

reclamation. 

19 It is assumed that the workforce would not reside at or near the coal mine, but instead would live in nearby 

communities. Consequently, wastes related to workforce support would be minimal, consisting primarily of 

kitchen/food preparation solid wastes, small amounts of administrative (office) solid wastes, and small amounts 

of sanitary wastes. 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-315 

preparation wastes are typically disposed of on-site or stockpiled for later use in mine 

reclamation. 

 Coal production in the study area over the period 2012 to 2032 is projected to be about 

64 million to 72 million tons/yr (see Tables 6.1.6-4 through 6.1.6-6). The amounts of solid 

wastes generated would be proportional to total coal mined, but would vary significantly with the 

particular mining techniques employed and the extent of coal preparation occurring at the mine 

site. Oil shale development using surface or underground mining would generate waste streams 

similar to those produced during coal mining. At the PEIS level, it is not possible to equate the 

nature or volumes of solid wastes with the amount (tons) of coal or oil shale mined. Cumulative 

impacts of hazardous materials generation and waste management would be evaluated in future 

NEPA analyses when the locations and sizes of the projects are known. 

 Sodium minerals (e.g., nahcolite) are produced in Wyoming at a rate of 

18 million tons/yr, and this production is expected to continue through the study period. 

Gilsonite, uranium, and vanadium would be mined within the study area over the period 2012 to 

2032; estimated total production rates for these minerals are not available. Gold, lead, 

molybdenum, silver, and zinc have all been previously mined in Colorado, but no information on 

any projects or future activities involving these metals is available. Saleable minerals, such as 

sand and gravel, continue to be mined in small quantities, and that level of activity is expected to 

continue at the local level throughout the study period. In Utah, materials mined in the ROI 

include sand and gravel, gilsonite, clay, gypsum, dimensionless sandstone, lime, gold, uranium, 

vanadium, and phosphate. Materials mined in the Wyoming ROI include sand and gravel, 

crushed stone, and sodium carbonate. 

 Mineral (e.g., copper, gold, silver) mining and processing can generate wastes during 

recovery (i.e., mining), beneficiation (separation of mined material), and processing. Recovery 

can result in large volumes of overburden materials needing management, as discussed above for 

coal mining. Although those materials are generally not considered waste, they must be managed 

properly to avoid adverse impacts. Beneficiation can result in the generation of relatively large 

volumes of potentially hazardous material. This material, referred to as tailings, is processed 

through dump leaching, in which solutions containing strong acids or cyanides are sprayed 

onto the tailings to “leach” the metal of interest for capture. The tailings can be voluminous 

(EPA 1994) and hazardous. Processing of the mineral ore involves a variety of chemical and 

physical manipulations that produce a wide variety of wastes, many of them capable of 

producing significant adverse environmental impacts if not managed properly. In 1985, the EPA 

published a Report to Congress on the environmental aspects of non-coal-mining activities; the 

report provides relatively comprehensive discussions of possible environmental impacts, 

including the types of wastes resulting from typical recovery, beneficiation, and processing 

schemes for selected metals (EPA 1985). 

 As in the development of metallic ores, oil shale development could generate produced 

water and large volumes of overburden; however, tailings would not be generated. Cumulative 

impacts of hazardous materials generation and waste management would be evaluated in future 

NEPA analyses when the locations and sizes of the projects are known. 

 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-316 

 Wastes Associated with Designation and Development of Energy Corridors. The 

designation of energy corridors within the study area would not, in and of itself, have any waste 

consequences. Waste would, however, be generated during actual corridor development for gas 

and liquid pipelines and for electric power transmission systems on public and private lands. 

Construction-related wastes would be similar in character to wastes generated during 

construction of gas and liquid pipelines. 

 Solid wastes associated with gas and liquid pipelines and with power transmission 

systems would be generated during construction, operation, and decommissioning. The majority 

of wastes would be generated during the construction phases. Construction wastes would include 

wastes generated during preparation of the ROW (these wastes would primarily consist of 

removed vegetation) and during installation of the pipeline or cables (primarily maintenancerelated wastes for vehicles and equipment, dunnage, packaging, and some chemical cleaner 

wastes). Support of the workforce would result in the production of domestic solid wastes and 

sanitary wastewaters. It is expected that the majority of construction-related wastes would be 

nonhazardous and would be managed in existing local landfills or existing municipal or specially 

built sewage treatment facilities. 

 Operational wastes would result from the maintenance of equipment (e.g., change-outs 

of lubricating oils, coolants, and hydraulic fluids from equipment that uses such materials, and 

sludge from the periodic cleaning of the insides of the pipelines through the use of pigs). The 

frequency of cleaning and the amount of waste generated would be a function of the commodity 

being transported; the greatest amounts of pipeline cleaning–related wastes would be generated 

by pipelines that convey crude oil. 

 Solid wastes associated with the decommissioning of pipelines or power transmission 

systems would include wastes from cleaning equipment and some pipeline components. For 

pipelines it is expected that much of the underground pipeline might be abandoned in place, and 

for those pipeline components that were removed, the majority would be put into service in other 

pipeline systems or sold for scrap. As would occur during the construction phase, solid domestic 

and sanitary wastes would be generated in support of the workforce (albeit in lesser amounts, 

since it is expected that decommissioning would take substantially less time than initial 

construction); all such wastes would likely be managed or disposed of in existing facilities. 

Finally, a certain volume of remedial wastes would be expected to result from the cleanup of 

spills or leaks that were not removed during operation or occurred during decommissioning. 

 The construction of gas and liquid pipeline ROWs and transmission ROWs to support oil 

shale development would generate waste types similar to those discussed above. Large numbers 

of gas and liquid ROWs are already present on public lands in the study area, and many more 

areas may be designated as corridors for ROWs during the study period (see Section 6.1.6.2). 

Incremental impacts from waste generation and disposal would depend on the level of oil shale 

development and would be analyzed in future site-specific environmental evaluations. 

 Wastes Associated with Construction and Operation of New Electric Power Generation 

Plants. Some new power plants are projected to be needed in the study area during the next 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-317 

20 years. Wastes associated with power plant construction would primarily consist of wastes 

from maintenance of construction equipment and vehicles powered by internal combustion 

engines (e.g., used crankcase oil, hydraulic fluids, and coolants). Other major solid waste streams 

would result from the support of the workforce (e.g., domestic solid wastes and sanitary 

wastewaters). All such wastes are expected to be easily managed in local or regional landfills or 

existing or specially built sewage treatment facilities. Minor amounts of industrial solid wastes 

would also result from the use of various chemicals (paints, coatings, adhesives, and cleaning 

solvents) during facility construction. 

 Solid wastes generated during operations by coal-fired power plants would consist of fly 

ash and bottom ash. It is assumed that newly constructed units would be required to conform to 

new source production standards. Typical coal-fired power plants generate on the order of 

500,000 tons/yr of fly and bottom ash and an additional 150,000 tons/yr of sodium sulfate solid 

waste (generated as a part of sulfur-capture). 

 If new power plants are required for oil shale development (e.g., to support in situ 

facilities), then they would generate waste types similar to those discussed above. Incremental 

impacts from power plant waste generation and disposal associated with oil shale development 

would depend on the level of that development and would be analyzed in future site-specific 

environmental evaluations. 

 Wastes Associated with Tar Sands Development. Wastes generated from tar sands 

development would be of the same nature as those described in Section 5.14. Incremental 

impacts from waste generation and disposal due to oil shale development would depend on the 

level of oil shale development and would be analyzed in future site-specific environmental 

evaluations. 

 6.1.6.3.14 Health and Safety. Given the large amount of development for oil and gas, 

coal mining, and other mineral production projected in the study area over 20 years, many 

workers will be needed. The types of industries being developed, especially mining, have been 

associated with relatively high numbers of worker injuries and fatalities in the past 

(see Section 4.15). Oil shale production activities would add to worker injuries and fatalities in 

proportion to the level of development. Without more detailed information on future production 

levels for oil shale as well as the other industries, quantitative estimates of incremental health 

and safety impacts due to oil shale development are not possible. However, all these industries 

are required by law to protect worker health and safety by using adequate engineering controls 

and personal protective devices. 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-318 

6.1.7 Other NEPA Considerations 

6.1.7.1 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 

 The amendment of land use plans to allocate public lands as available or not available for 

application for leasing for commercial oil shale development would not result in unavoidable 

adverse environmental impacts under Alternatives 2, 3, and 4, but there may be impacts on land 

values. Unavoidable adverse impacts on resources could occur under all four alternatives as a 

result of the ongoing RD&D projects. However, the mitigated environmental impacts (including 

unavoidable adverse impacts) of the RD&D activities are considered minimal, and all the EAs 

resulted in FONSIs. 

 Under all four alternatives, the future development of commercial oil shale projects could 

result in unavoidable adverse impacts on resources. The magnitude of these unavoidable adverse 

impacts, as well as the degree to which they could be mitigated, would vary by project type and 

location. Many of the project-specific impacts could be reduced through implementation of the 

mitigation practices identified in this PEIS (see Chapter 4). 

6.1.7.1.1 Land Use. No adverse impacts on land use would occur from the allocation of 

lands as available or not available for application for leasing under all four alternatives and the 

associated land use plan amendments under Alternatives 2 through 4. Unavoidable impacts could 

occur as a result of the potential future development of commercial oil shale projects within the 

areas identified as available for application for leasing under any of the Alternatives. The 

principal land uses that could be affected by the construction and operation of commercial oil 

shale projects include livestock grazing, agriculture, oil and gas leasing, minerals extraction, and 

recreation. 

 6.1.7.1.2 Soil, Geologic, and Paleontological Resources. No adverse impacts on 

geologic and paleontological resources would occur from the allocation of lands as available or 

not available for application for leasing under all four alternatives and the associated land use 

plan amendments under any of Alternatives 2 through 4. Unavoidable impacts could occur as a 

result of the potential future development of commercial oil shale projects in the areas identified 

under any of Alternatives 1 through 4. Project construction could result in unavoidable impacts 

on natural topography, soil erosion, drainage patterns, and slopes, as well as in damage to or 

destruction of paleontological resources within project footprints. Project construction could also 

result in the compaction, excavation, and removal of soil from the project area. The likelihood, 

magnitude, and extent of unavoidable impacts could be reduced under Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 

through the implementation of appropriate project- and location-specific mitigation measures. 

6.1.7.1.3 Water Resources. No adverse impacts on water resources would occur from 

the allocation of lands as available or not available for application for leasing under all four 

alternatives and the associated land use plan amendments under any of Alternatives 2 through 4. 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-319 

Unavoidable impacts could occur as a result of the potential future development of commercial 

oil shale projects in the areas identified under any of Alternatives 1 through 4. Impacts on water 

quality could occur as a result of soil erosion from construction sites; runoff from oil shale mine, 

processing, and waste storage locations; accidental spills of hazardous liquids (such as fuels, 

lubricating oils, solvents, and other industrial liquids); and accidental oil spills from projectrelated pipelines. Although there is a potential for unavoidable adverse impacts on water 

resources from construction under all four alternatives, the likelihood, magnitude, and extent of 

these impacts could be reduced under each alternative through the implementation of appropriate 

project- and location-specific mitigation measures. 

 6.1.7.1.4 Air Quality and Ambient Noise Levels. No adverse impacts on air quality or 

ambient noise would occur from the allocation of lands as available or not available for 

application for leasing under all four alternatives and the associated land use plan amendments 

under any of Alternatives 2 through 4. Unavoidable impacts could occur as a result of the 

potential future development of commercial oil shale projects in the areas identified under any of 

Alternatives 1 through 4. Construction, clearing and grading, trenching, excavation and blasting, 

and construction vehicle traffic would result in fugitive dust and vehicle emissions, as well as 

increased ambient noise levels in construction locations. During project operations, unavoidable 

air impacts would occur primarily during operation of mining and oil shale–processing facilities 

and equipment and associated vehicular traffic. Noise impacts could also be incurred by these 

activities, as well as by the operation of pipeline compressor stations. The likelihood, magnitude, 

and extent of unavoidable adverse impacts could be reduced under each alternative through the 

implementation of appropriate project- and location-specific mitigation measures. 

6.1.7.1.5 Ecological Resources. No adverse impacts on ecological resources would 

occur from the allocation of lands as available or not available for application for leasing under 

all four alternatives and the associated land use plan amendments under any of Alternatives 2 

through 4. Unavoidable impacts could occur as a result of the potential future commercial 

development of oil shale projects in the areas identified under any of Alternatives 1 through 4. 

The construction and operation of project facilities, as well as maintenance of project-related 

utility, pipeline, and transportation ROWs, under each alternative could result in unavoidable 

temporary and permanent changes in aquatic resources, plant communities and habitats, wildlife, 

and threatened and endangered species. 

 Ecological resources immediately within a project footprint would be destroyed during 

clearing, grading, and construction activities. Unavoidable impacts on wildlife could include 

habitat loss, disturbance and/or displacement, mortality, and obstruction to movement. Increased 

noise during project construction and operation could disrupt local wildlife foraging and 

breeding of some wildlife. Aquatic biota and habitats could be affected by siltation resulting 

from runoff from areas of disturbed soils and from accidental releases of hazardous materials 

from construction and operations equipment (such as fuels) and from an accidental oil pipeline 

releases. The likelihood, magnitude, and extent of unavoidable adverse impacts could be reduced 

under each alternative through the implementation of appropriate project- and location-specific 

mitigation measures. 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-320 

6.1.7.1.6 Visual Resources. No adverse impacts on visual resources would occur from 

the allocation of lands as available or not available for application for leasing under all four 

alternatives and the associated land use plan amendments under any of Alternatives 2 through 4. 

Unavoidable impacts could occur as a result of the potential future development of commercial 

oil shale projects in the areas identified under any of Alternatives 1 through 4. Short-term 

impacts would occur during construction. Fugitive dust and the presence of construction 

equipment and crews would be visible in the vicinity of the construction site, potentially 

affecting local viewsheds and recreational experiences. Because project-specific ROWs and 

infrastructure (e.g., electricity transmission towers, pipelines and compressor stations, surface 

mines, and oil shale–processing facilities) would be visible throughout the life span of any 

project, there could be long-term unavoidable impacts on some viewsheds and the recreational 

experiences of visitors in those viewsheds. Major landforming activities such as recontouring 

and on-site disposal of spent oil shale could result in impacts lasting well beyond the life span 

of the project and, in some cases, might result in permanent visual impacts. The likelihood, 

magnitude, and extent of unavoidable adverse impacts could be reduced under each alternative 

through the implementation of appropriate project- and location-specific mitigation measures. 

6.1.7.1.7 Cultural Resources. No adverse impacts on cultural resources would occur 

from the allocation of lands as available or not available for application for leasing under any of 

the alternatives and the associated land use plan amendments under Alternatives 2 through 4. 

Unavoidable impacts could occur as a result of the potential future development of commercial 

oil shale projects in the areas identified under any of Alternatives 1 through 4. Leasing itself has 

the potential to impact cultural resources to the extent that the terms of the lease could limit an 

agency’s ability to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects of proposed commercial oil shale 

development on cultural properties. Cultural resources could also incur unavoidable adverse 

impacts as a result of the future development of commercial oil shale projects in areas identified 

as available for application for leasing under all four alternatives. Cultural resources could be 

destroyed by construction activities, such as clearing and grading, mining, facility construction, 

and pipeline trenching. Development of new ROWs could also increase access to previously 

inaccessible areas, which could lead to vandalism of both known and undiscovered cultural sites. 

The likelihood, magnitude, and extent of unavoidable adverse impacts on cultural resources 

could be reduced under each alternative through the implementation of appropriate project- and 

location-specific mitigation measures. 

6.1.7.1.8 Indian Tribal Concerns. No adverse effects on resources important to Indian 

tribes would occur from the allocation of lands as available or not available for application for 

leasing under all four alternatives and the associated land use plan amendments under any of 

Alternatives 2 through 4. Unavoidable impacts could occur as a result of the future development 

of commercial oil shale projects in areas identified under any of Alternatives 1 through 4, 

depending on the location of the project in relation to resources important to Indian tribes. 

Resources could be destroyed by construction activities, such as clearing and grading, mining, 

facility construction, and pipeline trenching. The visual and auditory context of sacred sites 

could be impaired. Development of new ROWs could also increase access to previously 

inaccessible areas, which could lead to vandalism of culturally important sites. The likelihood, 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-321 

magnitude, and extent of unavoidable adverse impacts on resources important to Native 

Americans could be reduced under each alternative through government-to-government 

consultation with the affected tribes and the implementation of appropriate project- and locationspecific mitigation measures, but adverse impacts may not be entirely avoidable. 

6.1.7.1.9 Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice. No adverse impacts on 

socioeconomics, transportation, or environmental justice would occur from the allocation of 

lands as available or not available for application for leasing under all four alternatives and the 

associated land use plan amendments under any of Alternatives 2 through 4, with the exception 

noted regarding potential impacts on land values. Unavoidable social and environmental justice 

impacts could occur under all four alternatives as a result of the future construction and operation 

of commercial oil shale projects and associated power plants, coal mines, transportation 

infrastructure, and employer-provided housing. Rapid population growth could occur following 

the in-migration of construction and operations workers into communities; this could lead to the 

undermining of local community social structures with contrasting beliefs and value systems 

among the local population and in-migrants and, consequently, to a range of changes in social 

and community life, including increases in crime, alcoholism, drug use, and so forth. Impacts 

could also occur in association with the degradation of air quality, water quality, and visual 

resources; increases in traffic and congestion; and the removal of land from traditional uses 

during commercial project development. Many of these impacts would affect quality of life for 

the general population in many communities, in addition to that of low-income and minority 

populations residing in the vicinity of oil shale developments. Many locations of cultural 

significance to tribal groups may have been protected or identified. Nevertheless, with the 

alteration of, or restricted access to, water and visual resources and the degradation or migration 

of particular animal species, oil shale developments would have impacts on subsistence and 

traditional landscape-based activities important to tribal groups. 

 6.1.7.1.10 Hazardous Materials and Waste Management. No adverse impacts on 

hazardous materials and waste management would occur from the allocation of lands as 

available or not available for application for leasing under all four alternatives and the associated 

land use plan amendments under any of Alternatives 2 through 4. Unavoidable adverse impacts 

could occur as a result of the potential future development of commercial oil shale projects in the 

areas identified under any of Alternatives 1 through 4. Construction and operations of oil shale 

projects would result in the use of hazardous materials and the generation of hazardous and 

nonhazardous wastes, including materials typically utilized during construction and operations 

(e.g., fuels, lubricating oils, hydraulic fluids, glycol-based coolants and solvents, adhesives, 

corrosion control coatings, and herbicides for vegetation clearing). During construction, 

nonhazardous landscape wastes would be generated. In general, the appropriate management of 

these materials would result in only minor impacts. Disposal of spent shale within the leased area 

could result in unavoidable adverse impacts. The likelihood, magnitude, and extent of 

unavoidable adverse impacts from hazardous materials and waste management could be reduced 

under each alternative through the implementation of appropriate project- and location-specific 

mitigation measures. 

 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-322 

 6.1.7.1.11 Health and Safety. No adverse impacts on health and safety would occur 

from the allocation of lands as available or not available for application for leasing under all four 

alternatives and the associated land use plan amendments under any of Alternatives 2 through 4. 

Unavoidable adverse impacts could occur as a result of the potential future development of 

commercial oil shale projects in the areas identified under any of Alternatives 1 through 4. 

Hazards for workers at oil shale development facilities include risks of accidental injuries or 

fatalities, lung disease caused by inhalation of particulates and other hazardous substances, and 

hearing loss. A comprehensive facility health and safety plan and worker safety training would 

be required as part of the plan of development for every proposed commercial oil shale project. 

The likelihood, magnitude, and extent of unavoidable adverse impacts on health and safety could 

be reduced under each alternative through the implementation of appropriate project- and 

location-specific mitigation measures. 

6.1.7.2 Short-Term Use of the Environment and Long-Term Productivity 

 The amendment of land use plans to allocate lands as available or not available for 

application for leasing for commercial oil shale development would not affect the short-term 

uses or long-term productivity of the environment. The impacts (short and long term) from 

utilization of resources associated with project development under all four alternatives are 

presented in Chapter 4. For this PEIS, short-term refers primarily to the period of construction of 

a commercial oil shale project; in general, it is during this time that the most extensive 

environmental impacts would occur. Long-term refers primarily to the 20-year time frame 

considered within this PEIS. 

 Within the 20-year time frame considered in this PEIS, the development of oil shale 

projects would not require the short-term disturbance or long-term alteration of a major amount 

of federal and nonfederal land under any of the four alternatives. Future development of 

commercial oil shale projects under any of Alternatives 1 through 4 would result in the local, 

short- and long-term disturbance of most resources. There would be little difference in the types 

of impacts that could result from project development under any of these alternatives. Under 

each of these alternatives, land clearing and grading and construction activities would disturb 

surface soils and wildlife and their habitats, and affect local air and water quality, visual 

resources, noise levels, and recreational activities within individual project footprints. Similar 

effects could be expected on other federal and nonfederal lands where project-related 

infrastructure (e.g., power plants, utility and pipeline ROWs, and worker residences) would be 

located. Short-term construction-related disturbance of biota (and their habitats) could result in 

long-term reductions in biological productivity within the project areas. 

 The long-term presence of commercial oil shale projects and associated ROWs could 

affect long-term land use within and in the vicinity of the lease areas, as well as on both federal 

and nonfederal lands where support infrastructure (power plants, ROWs, and employee housing) 

would be located, especially if previous land use activities in those areas are determined to be 

incompatible with commercial oil shale projects. The lands and surrounding areas associated 

with all four alternatives currently support a variety of land uses (depending on their specific 

locations), including livestock grazing, agriculture, recreation, oil and gas leasing, and minerals 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-323 

extraction. Under all four alternatives, commercial oil shale projects could also affect long-term 

quality and use of visual resources and use of recreational resources on federal and nonfederal 

lands. While some recreational activities (such as OHV use) could experience long-term 

increases in activity as a result of new ROWs in previously inaccessible areas, changes in the 

types and patterns of recreational usage can be positive or negative, depending on the subjective 

values of the interested and affected public. 

6.1.7.3 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources 

 This section describes the irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources 

associated with the implementation of the four alternatives evaluated in this PEIS. A resource 

commitment is considered irreversible when direct and indirect impacts from its use limit future 

use options. Irreversible commitments apply primarily to nonrenewable resources, such as 

cultural resources, and to those resources that are renewable only over long periods of time, such 

as soil productivity or forest health. A resource commitment is considered irretrievable when the 

use or consumption of the resource renders it neither renewable nor recoverable for future use. 

Irretrievable commitments apply to loss of production, harvest, or use of natural resources. 

 The amendment of land use plans to identify lands as available or not available for 

application for leasing for commercial oil shale development would not result in the irreversible 

or irretrievable commitment of resources. As a result of future commercial oil shale projects that 

are authorized, constructed, and operated on lands identified as available for such activities, 

however, irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources could occur. The nature and 

magnitude of these commitments would depend on the specific location of the project 

development as well as on its specific design and operational requirements. The commitment of 

resources would be identical for any specific project located in the same lease area under all four 

alternatives. 

 In addition to the oil shale itself, the construction of future commercial oil shale projects 

under all four alternatives could result in the consumption of sands, gravels, and other geologic 

resources, as well as fuel, structural steel, and other materials. Water resources could also be 

consumed during construction, although water use would be temporary and largely limited to 

on-site concrete-mixing and dust abatement activities. 

 In general, the impact on biological resources from future project construction and 

operation would not constitute an irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources. During 

project construction and operation, individual animals would be impacted. Site- and speciesspecific analyses and mitigation conducted at the project level during authorization would make 

adverse impacts on entire populations unlikely. However, if adverse impacts on threatened or 

endangered species occurred, those impacts would likely contribute an irreversible commitment 

of resources. 

 The clearing of project areas (including off-lease locations where utility and pipeline 

ROWs, power plants, and employer-provided housing) would result in the direct loss of 

vegetation and habitats within the construction footprints, which would be irretrievable in areas 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-324 

where project infrastructure would be constructed and operated. While habitat would be 

impacted during project construction, implementation of project-specific mitigation measures 

(such as habitat restoration) would reduce these impacts over time. However, habitats within 

project infrastructure footprints (such as buildings and surface mines) would be irretrievably 

committed to the development and operation of commercial oil shale projects. 

 Cultural and paleontological resources are nonrenewable, and any disturbance of these 

resources would constitute an irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources. However, 

consideration and implementation of mitigation could minimize the potential for impacts on 

these resources. Access to previously inaccessible areas could lead to vandalism of both known 

and unknown cultural and paleontological resources, thereby rendering them irretrievable. 

Impacts on visual resources could constitute an irreversible and irretrievable commitment of 

resources, but these impacts could also be lowered somewhat through the consideration and 

implementation of the mitigation measures. 

6.1.7.4 Mitigation of Adverse Effects 

 Following the amendment of land use plans to identify areas available for application 

for commercial leasing, any future development of commercial oil shale projects within the 

lease areas could result in adverse impacts on many resources (see Chapter 4 and Sections 6.1.2 

and 6.1.3). The nature, extent, magnitude, and duration of any project-related impacts would be 

directly determined by (1) the project location, (2) the nature and quality of resources at and in 

the vicinity of the project site (and its associated infrastructure), (3) the technology used and the 

plan of development for the project. Many of the impacts could be reduced or avoided through 

the implementation of appropriate site- and project-specific mitigation measures. Development 

of individual commercial oil shale projects would require additional project-specific NEPA 

analyses and the identification of location-, project- and resource-specific mitigation measures. 

Mitigation measures would be identified as lease stipulations by the BLM for any authorized 

commercial development. Chapter 4 of this PEIS identifies many types of resource-specific 

mitigation measures that could be implemented during project construction and operation. 

6.2 TAR SANDS ALTERNATIVES 

 This section presents the impacts associated with the four tar sands alternatives: 

Alternative 1 (the No Action Alternative) is discussed in Section 6.2.1; The impacts of 

Alternatives 2 (Conservation Focus), 3 (Pending Commercial Lease), and 4 (Moderate 

Development) are discussed in Sections 6.2.2, 6.2.3, and 6.2.4, respectively. Section 6.2.5 

presents a comparison of the tar sands alternatives. Discussions of the cumulative impacts and 

other NEPA considerations associated with Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 are presented in 

Section 6.2.6. 

 The total acreage included within the 11 STSAs is about 1,026,266 acres, of which 

653,809 acres are public lands. These public lands consist of 572,613 acres of surface and 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-325 

subsurface lands and 81,196 acres of subsurface mineral under nonfederal surface 

(see Table 2.4-1). 

 Information contained in Sections 6.2.2, 6.2.3, and 6.2.4 describes (1) the impact of the 

land allocation decisions proposed in Alternatives 2, 3, and 4, which is the focus of the PEIS, and 

(2) the potential impact of future commercial tar sands development on the public lands that 

would be made available for application for future leasing and development in each alternative. 

The bulk of the information provided in Sections 6.2.2, 6.2.3, and 6.2.4 addresses the effects of 

potential future commercial development. However, as has been explained previously in this 

PEIS, commercial leasing and development are not being approved at this time. The information 

on potential impacts is being presented to help agency decision makers and the public form an 

impression of the effects of potential future development. Together with the information 

contained in Chapter 5, this analysis and comparison of potential impacts of future development 

associated with each of the alternatives aids agency decision makers in making an informed 

decision regarding the relative merits of the alternative approaches to land allocation. It is also 

intended that these analyses will help identify information that will be needed to process future 

applications for commercial development. 

 On the basis of the analyses contained in this PEIS, the BLM has determined that with 

the exception noted in the socioeconomic analysis regarding potential impacts on land values, the 

land use plan amendments represented by Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would not result in any 

impacts on the environment or socioeconomic setting. The future development of commercial tar 

sands projects that could be approved after subsequent NEPA analysis on lands identified in 

these alternatives as available for application for leasing, however, would have impacts on the 

environment and the socioeconomic setting. The bulk of the information presented in 

Sections 6.2.2, 6.2.3, and 6.2.4 identifies in a non-site-specific manner the potential impacts 

associated with future commercial tar sands development under each alternative. The magnitude 

of the impacts cannot be quantified at this time because key information about the location of 

commercial projects, the technologies that may be employed, the project size or production level, 

development time lines, and potential mitigation that might be employed are unknown. 

6.2.1 Impacts of Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative, No Change to 2008 Decision 

 Under Alternative 1, no existing land use plans would be amended, and 430,686 acres 

would remain available for application for commercial tar sands leasing. These lands are 

included within 10 designated STSAs: Argyle Canyon, Asphalt Ridge, Hill Creek, Pariette, 

P.R. Spring, Raven Ridge, San Rafael, Sunnyside, Tar Sand Triangle, and White Canyon 

(see Figure 2.4.2-1 and Table 2.4.2-1). The eleventh existing designated STSA, Circle Cliffs, is 

not available for leasing under any alternative because the portion administered by the BLM is 

located entirely within the GSENM. The public lands available under Alternative 1 consist of 

360,363 acres of BLM-administered lands and 34,852 acres of split estate lands. (See 

Section 2.4.2 for a complete description of Alternative 1.) Figure 2.4.2-1 shows the lands 

available for application for leasing under Alternative 1. In this alternative, any leasing or 

development of tar sands resources would be managed under the requirements of the four 

existing land use plans consistent with the ROD from the 2008 OSTS PEIS. Prior to approval of 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-326 

any commercial leasing or development of tar sands resources, additional NEPA analysis would 

be required. 

 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 or not 

available for application for commercial leasing in the three-state study area, but there may be 

impacts on land values. The development of commercial tar sands projects on lands identified as 

available for application for leasing, however, would impact resources on these lands. 

 In general, potential impacts of future commercial development on specific resources 

located within the 430,686 acres cannot be quantified at this time because key information about 

the location of projects, the technologies that will be employed, the project size or production 

level, and development time lines are unknown. While it is not possible to quantify the impacts 

of project development, it is possible to make observations and draw conclusions on the basis of 

certain lands being made available for application for leasing and their overlap with specific 

resources. The following sections describe the potential impacts on the environment and 

socioeconomic setting of subsequent commercial development that might occur on the lands 

identified as available for leasing in Alternative 1. Many of these potential impacts might be 

successfully avoided or mitigated, depending upon site- and project-specific factors and future 

regulations that will guide leasing actions. 

 The total amount of public land (including both surface and subsurface) within the 

11 designated STSAs is 653,809 acres (Table 2.4-1). Under Alternative 1, about 66% of these 

lands would remain available for application for commercial leasing. Table 6.2.1-1 lists the 

acreage per STSA. The public lands that would not be available for application for leasing 

include all those areas that are excluded from leasing and development by virtue of existing laws 

and regulations, E.O.s, land use plan designations, and other administrative designations or 

withdrawals. These excluded lands (e.g., Wilderness Areas, WSAs, National Monuments, WSRs, 

and ACECs) encompass many of the areas where special resources are known to exist. In 

addition, the BLM has excluded all lands within the Circle Cliffs STSA (which is located inside 

the GSENM) and corridors along suitable WSR segments. 

6.2.1.1 Land Use 

 Under Alternative 1, 430,686 acres of public land in Utah would remain available for 

application for leasing for commercial development of tar sands. This availability is expected to 

have no impacts on other land uses, although there may be some effect on land values. Retaining 

these lands as available for application for leasing does not authorize or approve any grounddisturbing activities that could affect land uses; however, existing land uses could be adversely 

affected by future commercial tar sands development on these lands. 

 As discussed in Section 3.1, lands where commercial tar sands development might 

occur are currently used for a wide variety of activities, including recreation, mining, oil and gas 

production, livestock grazing, wild horse and burro management, communication sites, and 

ROW corridors (e.g., roads, pipelines, and transmission lines). Commercial tar sands 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-327 

TABLE 6.2.1-1 Amount of Land Available for Application for 

Commercial Tar Sands Leasing under All Alternativesa,b

Acres Available 

STSA Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 

 

Argyle Canyon 11,226 0 0 12,296

Asphalt Ridge 5,435 2,123 2,100 5,435 

Hill Creek 56,507 45,357 0 62,152 

Pariette 10,161 830 0 10,161

P.R. Spring 152,617 42,631 0 154,516 

Raven Ridge 14,364 9,119 0 14,364 

San Rafael Swell 70,475 8,961 0 72,146

Sunnyside 77,962 20,400 0 72,360 

Tar Sand Triangle 24,938 101 0 24,938 

White Canyon 7,000 45 0 7,001 

 

Total 430,686 129,567 2,123 435,369 

a Acreage estimates were derived from GIS data compiled to support the PEIS 

analyses. 

b Columns and rows may not add exactly due to rounding. 

development would have a direct effect on these uses depending upon the type of authorization 

for the use of public lands and would displace these uses from areas that are developed for tar 

sands production. Tar sands development also will require off-lease construction of 

infrastructure, such as transmission and pipeline ROWs and possibly employer-provided 

housing, which also may have an impact on existing land uses. Some uses of public and 

nonpublic lands might also be indirectly affected by tar sands development. 

 Future indirect impacts of tar sands development could be associated with changing 

existing land uses, including conversion of land in and around local communities from existing 

agricultural, open space, or other uses to provide services and housing for employees and 

families that move to the region in support of commercial tar sands development. Increases in 

traffic, increased access to previously remote areas, and development of tar sands facilities in 

currently undeveloped areas would continue to change the overall character of the landscape. 

The value of private ranches and residences in the area affected by tar sands development or 

associated ROWs either may be reduced, because of perceived noise, traffic, or human health or 

aesthetic concerns, or may be increased by additional demand for private lands. 

 Transmission and pipeline ROWs associated with commercial tar sands development 

would not preclude other land uses but would result in both direct and indirect impacts. Direct 

impacts, such as the loss of land to physical structures, maintenance of ROWs free of major 

vegetation particularly in any forested areas, maintenance of service roads, and noise and visual 

impacts on recreational users or residents along the ROW, would last as long as the transmission 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-328 

lines and pipelines were in place. Indirect impacts of ROW development could include the 

introduction of new or increased recreational use to an area due to improved access, avoidance of 

the area for residential or recreational use for aesthetic reasons, and increased traffic. 

 The specific impacts on existing land use and the magnitude of those impacts would 

depend on project location; project size, technology employed, and scale of operations; and 

proximity to roads, transmission lines, and pipelines. Impacts on various land uses that could be 

caused by commercial development of tar sands are discussed in Section 5.2 and are summarized 

below. 

• Commercial tar sands development, using any technology under consideration 

in this PEIS, is largely incompatible with other mineral development activities 

because each of the technologies would dominate the land area on which it is 

located. Oil and gas development is ongoing in many parts of the study area, 

and conflict between tar sands projects and oil and gas projects may occur. 

While it is possible that undeveloped portions of a tar sands lease area could 

be available for other mineral development, such development would be 

unlikely to occur on a widespread basis, except possibly in areas where a 

single company is developing multiple resources. Conflict between tar sands 

and oil and gas or other mineral development would cease when tar sands 

development and extraction have been completed.

• Where existing agricultural water rights are acquired to support tar sands 

development, existing irrigation-based agricultural uses of the land from 

which the water is acquired would be modified to support lower value dry 

land agricultural use of the lands and/or may result in a complete loss of 

agricultural uses in some areas. Conversion to nonfarm uses may be 

dependent upon local zoning decisions.

• Grazing activities would be precluded by commercial tar sands development 

in those portions of a lease area that were (1) undergoing active development; 

(2) being prepared for a future development phase; (3) undergoing restoration 

after development; or (4) occupied by long-term surface modifications and 

facilities, such as surface mine excavations, production facilities, office 

buildings, retorts, and parking lots. Depending on conditions unique to the 

individual grazing allotment, temporary reductions in authorized grazing use 

will likely be necessary because of the loss of a portion of the forage base. It 

is possible, depending upon how commercial leases would be developed, that 

some grazing uses might be accommodated on parts of the leases at various 

times during the lease period. Once surface restoration of tar sands 

development areas is complete, a resumption of grazing use would be 

possible. 

The impact of the removal of acreage from individual grazing leases would 

depend on site-specific factors regarding the grazing allotment(s) affected. 

The size and productivity of BLM grazing allotments varies greatly across the 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-329 

PEIS study area, and the loss of up to 5,760 acres for individual tar sands 

facilities from larger allotments may not be as significant as from smaller 

allotments. Smaller allotments could become completely unavailable for 

grazing use. Others would lose varying percentages of grazing area that may 

affect their overall economic viability. While lands might be available for 

grazing use after completion of tar sands development activities, individual 

permittees may not be able to withstand the economic impacts on their 

operations during the development period.

• Commercial tar sands development activities are largely incompatible with 

recreational land use (e.g., hiking, biking, fishing, hunting, bird-watching, 

OHV use, and camping). Recreational uses would be precluded from those 

portions of commercial lease areas involved in ongoing development and 

restoration activities. Impacts on vegetation, development of roads, and 

displacement of big game would degrade the recreational experiences and 

hunting opportunities near commercial tar sands projects. The impact of 

displacement of recreational uses from tar sands development lease areas 

would be highly dependent upon site-specific factors, especially the nature of 

existing uses on the site. 

• Specially designated areas, including 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, and existing 

ACECs would not be available for application 

for tar sands leasing and commercial 

development and would not be directly 

affected. They might, however, incur indirect 

impacts (e.g., degraded viewsheds) resulting 

from commercial tar sands development on 

adjacent lands or nearby areas. 

• This alternative excludes from leasing 

50,967 acres of designated ACECs existing at 

the time the analysis for the 2008 PEIS was 

completed. However, there are four ACECs 

totaling 10,541 acres that were designated in 

the 2008 Utah land use plan revisions that are 

not excluded from leasing in this alternative. 

Table 6.2.1-2 shows these ACECs that are 

subject to potential development. If tar sands 

development occurs in these ACECs, 

depending on the nature of resources present, 

these resources would be lost. 

TABLE 6.2.1-2 ACECs Not Closed 

to Mineral Entry Overlapping with 

Lands Available for Application for 

Commercial Tar Sands Leasing 

under Alternative 1 and the Amount 

of Overlapa

ACEC 

Amount of Overlap 

(acres) 

 

San Rafael STSA 

Lucky Strike 575 

Temple Mountain 82

 

Sunnyside STSA 

Nine Mile Canyon 9,762 

 

Total 10,541 

a Totals may be off due to rounding. 

Acreage estimates were derived from 

GIS data compiled to support the PEIS 

analyses. 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-330 

• Lands available for application for lease contain all or portions of areas that 

were recognized by the BLM in Utah as LWC. Table 6.2.1-3 lists these areas. 

Most of these areas were not identified for long-term management to protect 

wilderness resources in the series of land use plans completed in Utah in 2008. 

Should commercial development of tar sands occur on these lands, the 

identified wilderness characteristics in both the areas that are developed and 

those that border the developed areas would be lost. Alternative 1 includes 

approximately 145,000 acres of these lands that could be subject to potential 

development. 

• Several wild horse and burro HMAs overlap lands available for application 

for tar sands leasing, including the Hill Creek HMA (19,820 acres), which 

overlaps the Hill Creek STSA; the Muddy Creek and Sinbad HMAs 

(3,954 and 39,435 acres, respectively), which overlap with the San Rafael 

STSA; the Range Creek HMA (13,933 acres), which overlaps the Sunnyside 

STSA; and the Canyon Lands HMA (267 acres), which overlaps with the Tar 

Sand Triangle STSA (Figure 6.2.1-1). Any tar sands development that occurs 

in HMAs would need to protect wild horses and burros under the Wild FreeRoaming Horse and Burro Act of 1971. 

6.2.1.2 Soil and Geologic Resources 

 Under Alternative 1, no existing land use plans would be amended, and the 430,686 acres 

of public land in Utah designated in 2008 for commercial tar sands leasing would remain 

available (Section 2.4.2). Under this alternative, commercial tar sands leasing would not have 

any direct impacts on soil or geologic resources. Soil and geologic resources within the area, 

however, could be affected by future commercial tar sands development on these lands. 

 Soil and geologic resources could be affected during project construction as a result of 

removal or compaction (e.g., during site clearing and grading, foundation excavation and 

preparation, and pipeline trenching) and by erosion during project construction and operation 

(e.g., erosion of exposed soils in construction areas or of topsoil stockpiles (see Section 5.3.1). 

Erosion of exposed soils could also lead to increased sedimentation of nearby water bodies and 

to the generation of fugitive dust, which could affect local air quality. Project areas would remain 

susceptible to erosion until completion of construction, mining, tar sands processing, and site 

stabilization and reclamation activities (e.g., revegetation of pipeline ROWs and surface mine 

reclamation). Impacts on soil and geologic resources would be limited to the specific project 

location as well as to areas where associated off-lease infrastructure (e.g., access roads, utility 

ROWs, and power plants) would be located. 

 Under Alternative 1, impacts on soil and geologic resources could occur wherever 

individual projects are located within the 430,686 acres available for application for commercial 

leasing. For any project, the erosion potential of the soils would be a direct function of the lease 

and project location and also the soil characteristics, vegetative cover, and topography 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-331 

TABLE 6.2.1-3 Areas with Wilderness Characteristics That Overlap with Lands Available 

for Application for Commercial Tar Sands Leasing under All Alternatives and the Amount 

of Overlapa,b

Amount of Overlap (acres) 

Name of Area with Wilderness 

Characteristics Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 

 

Hill Creek STSA 

Wolf Point 937 0 0 937 

 

P.R. Spring STSA 

Bitter Creek 12,252 0 0 12,907 

Hideout Canyon 1,025 0 0 1,025 

Lower Bitter Creek 514 0 0 514 

Mexico Point 748 0 0 748 

Wolf Point 5,149 0 0 5,149 

Flume Canyon 19 0 0 19 

Westwater Creek 1,468 0 0 1,468 

 

Raven Ridge 

The Rim Rock B 828 0 0 828 

 

San Rafael STSA 

Devils Canyon 1,113 0 0 1,113 

Hondu Countryc 4,206 0 0 4,206 

Mexican Mountainc 17,733 0 0 19,746 

Muddy Creek–Crack Canyonc 10,883 0 0 10,597 

San Rafael Knob 5,412 0 0 5,103 

San Rafael Reef c 3,991 0 0 3,991 

Sids Mountain 4,244 0 0 4,244 

Sids Draw 3,560 0 0 3,560 

Block Mountain 5,934 0 0 5,934 

Horseshoe-Wickiup 5,834 0 0 5,862 

 

Sunnyside STSA 

Big Sulfur Canyon 280 0 0 280 

Cold Spring Draw East 506 0 0 0 

Cold Spring Draw West 4,901 0 0 4,901 

Cottonwood Ridge 5,887 0 0 5,887 

Currant Canyon 71 0 0 0 

Desolation Canyon 7,486 0 0 2,850 

Horse Ridge West Unit 1 4,383 0 0 4,383 

Indian Swale 2,763 0 0 2,763 

Sheep Canyon 2,758 0 0 2,502 

 

Tar Sand Triangle STSA 

Dirty Devil–French Springs 24,272 0 0 24,272 

The Cove 455 0 0 455 

 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-332 

TABLE 6.2.1-3 (Cont.) 

Amount of Overlap (acres) 

Name of Area with Wilderness 

Characteristics Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 

 

White Canyon STSA 

Blue Notch 39 0 0 39 

Dark Canyon 218 0 0 218 

Fort Knocker Canyon 71 0 0 71 

Gravel and Long Canyon 1,727 0 0 1,727 

 

Red Rocks Plateau A 68 0 0 68 

White Canyon 2,751 0 0 2,751 

 

Total 144,556 0 0 138,211 

a The 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 Totals may be off due to rounding. Acreage estimates were derived from GIS data compiled to 

support the PEIS analyses. 

c Indicates areas that were identified in the 2008 RMPs for long-term management to protect 

wilderness characteristics. Only Hondu Country and Muddy Creek–Crack Canyon have LWC 

designated for long-term management that overlap the STSA. All of the overlap acres for these two 

areas (15,089 acres) are identified for LWC management. 

(i.e., slope) at that location. Development in areas that have erosive soils and steep slopes 

(e.g., in excess of 25%) could lead to serious erosion problems at those locations. 

6.2.1.3 Paleontological Resources 

 Under Alternative 1, no existing land use plans would be amended, and the 430,686 acres 

of public land in Utah designated in 2008 for commercial tar sands leasing would remain 

available (Section 2.4.2). Paleontological resources within these areas could be adversely 

affected if leasing and subsequent commercial development occur. Of the 430,686 acres 

available for application within the STSAs, a total of 335,396 acres (approximately 78% of the 

430,686 acres that would be available under Alternative 1) have been identified as overlying 

geologic formations having the potential to contain important paleontological resources 

(Murphey and Daitch 2007). 

 Impacts from tar sands development could include the destruction of paleontological 

resources and the 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 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-333 

FIGURE 6.2.1-1 Lands Available for Application for Tar Sands Leasing under Alternative 1 in 

Relation to Wild Horse and Burro Herd Management Areas 

 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-334 

vandalism as a result of increased human access and related disturbance in sensitive areas. 

However, tar sands development could also result in scientifically beneficial discoveries that 

may not have otherwise been made. These impacts and the application of mitigation measures to 

reduce or eliminate them are discussed in Section 5.4. 

6.2.1.4 Water Resources 

 Under Alternative 1, the 430,686 acres of public land in Utah available for application for 

leasing for commercial development of tar sands (approximately 66% of the federal lands in the 

STSAs) would remain available. This land use allocation would not have direct impacts on water 

resources. Surface water and groundwater resources, however, could be adversely affected by 

subsequent commercial tar sands development on these lands. The amount of water that may be 

required for future commercial development and the potential mix required among surface water, 

groundwater, and treated process water is unknown. 

 The inability to predict specific locations for potential future commercial development 

and the lack of information regarding the type of technology that might be employed make it 

impossible to predict the specific impacts on water resources that could occur with commercial 

development. The magnitude of such impacts would depend on the specific location of the area 

being developed, as well as the design of the project and associated infrastructure. 

 Section 5.5 of this PEIS provides a generic description of the potential impacts on water 

resources. These impacts could occur anywhere within the 430,686 acres available for 

application for leasing under this alternative. The following is a summary of these generic 

impacts: 

• Degradation of surface water quality caused by increased sediment load or 

contaminated runoff from project sites; 

• Surface disturbance that may alter natural drainages by both diverting and 

concentrating natural runoff; 

• Surface disturbance that becomes a non-point source of sediment and 

dissolved salt to surface water bodies; 

• Withdrawal of water from a surface water body that reduces its flow and 

degrades the water quality of the stream downgradient from the point of the 

withdrawal; 

• Withdrawals of groundwater from a shallow aquifer that produce a cone of 

depression and reduce groundwater discharge to surface water bodies or to the 

springs or seeps that are hydrologically connected to the groundwater; 

• Construction of reservoirs that might alter natural streamflow patterns, alter 

local fisheries, temporarily increase salt loading, cause changes in stream 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-335 

profiles downstream, reduce natural sediment transport mechanisms, and 

increase evapotranspiration losses; 

• Discharged water from a project site that could have a lower water quality 

than the intake water that is brought to a site; 

• Mine tailings that might be sources of salt, metal, and hydrocarbon 

contamination for both surface and groundwater; 

• Dewatering operations of a mine, or dewatering through wells that penetrate 

multiple aquifers, that could reduce groundwater discharge to seeps, springs, 

or surface water bodies if the surface water and the groundwater are 

connected; 

• Degradation of groundwater quality resulting from the injection of lower 

quality water, from contributions of residual hydrocarbons or chemicals from 

retorted zones after recovery operations have ceased, and from spent shale 

replaced in either surface or underground mines; and 

• Reduction or loss of flow in domestic water wells from dewatering operations 

or from production of water for industrial uses. 

 As noted in Section 6.2.1.2, lands available for application for leasing under Alternative 1 

include lands that have been identified in BLM land use plans as having high potential for 

erosion due to steep slopes and/or highly erosive soils. Surface water quality could be adversely 

impacted by erosion from these lands and similar lands throughout the STSAs, which would 

contribute to increases in sediment and salinity loads. 

 In addition, lands available for application for leasing under Alternative 1 contain 

sensitive hydrologic areas identified by the BLM, including about 6,100 acres of watershed, 

floodplains, and other sensitive water resources in Utah. Impairment of the function of these 

areas by increased sedimentation from disturbance of sensitive soil areas or from runoff of 

contaminated water from project sites would also contribute to overall adverse effects on water 

quality. 

 There are approximately 272 mi of perennial streams in the STSAs. Alternative 1 

contains approximately 185 mi (68%) of these perennial streams that could be adversely 

impacted, either directly or indirectly, by future commercial tar sands development. 

6.2.1.5 Air Quality 

 Under Alternative 1, 430,686 acres of public land would remain available within Utah for 

application for leasing for commercial development of tar sands (Section 2.4.2). Air resources 

would not be affected by this action. Air resources in and around these areas, however, could be 

affected by future commercial development of tar sands. Under Alternative 1, local, short-term 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-336 

air quality impacts could be incurred as a result of (1) PM releases (fugitive dust and diesel 

exhaust) during construction activities such as site clearing and grading in preparation for facility 

construction, and (2) exhaust emissions (NOx, CO, PM, VOC, and SO2) from construction 

equipment and vehicles (see Section 5.6). These types of impacts would be of short duration and 

largely limited to specific project locations and the immediate surrounding area. Similar shortterm impacts could also occur in other areas where electric transmission lines, oil pipelines, 

transportation ROWs, and other infrastructure would be located and developed. 

 Similar but longer term impacts on local air quality could occur during normal project 

operations such as mining and processing of the tar sands. Processing activities may also result in 

regional impacts on air quality and AQRVs, such as visibility and acid deposition, that could 

extend beyond the boundaries of the potential lease areas. These regional impacts would be 

associated with operational releases of NOx, CO, PM, and other pollutants (VOCs and SO2) 

during tar sands excavation and processing (see Section 5.6). In addition, ozone precursors of 

NOx and VOC from tar sands development could exacerbate wintertime high-ozone occurrences 

already prevalent in the study area, especially in Uintah County. Operational releases of HAPs 

(such as benzene, toluene, and formaldehyde) as well as diesel PM could also affect workers and 

nearby residences (if any are present); these impacts, however, would be localized to the 

immediate project location and subject to further analyses prior to implementation. 

 During all phases of tar sands development, GHG emissions of primarily CO2 and lesser 

amounts of CH4 and N2O from combustions sources could contribute to climate change to some 

extent. 

6.2.1.6 Noise 

 Under Alternative 1, 430,686 acres of public land in Utah are available for application for 

leasing for commercial development of tar sands. Ambient noise levels in these areas are not 

expected to be affected by this land allocation decision. Ambient noise levels could be affected, 

however, by future commercial development of tar sands. Under Alternative 1, local, short-term 

changes in ambient noise levels could occur during the construction, operation, and reclamation 

of tar sands projects (see Section 5.7.1). Project-related increases in noise levels could disturb or 

displace wildlife and recreational users in nearby areas. Impacts on wildlife and recreational 

users are discussed in Sections 5.8.1.3 and 5.2.1.3, respectively. 

 Noise levels could be affected as a result of the operation of construction equipment 

(graders, excavators, and haul trucks) and as a result of any blasting activities. Increases in 

ambient noise levels during operations would be associated with mining and tar sands processing 

activities and would be more long-term than construction-related noise. These types of impacts 

would be largely limited to specific project locations and the immediate surrounding area. 

Similar short-term and long-term impacts could also occur in other areas where electric 

transmission lines, oil pipelines, gas pipelines, transportation ROWs, and other infrastructure 

would be located, developed, and operated. For example, ambient noise levels could also be 

increased in the immediate vicinity of any pipeline pump stations and could also be affected by 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-337 

project-related vehicular traffic at the project site and related locations such as access roads to 

the site. 

 Construction-related noise levels could exceed EPA guidelines (however, local 

jurisdictions have noise controls pertaining to construction). Similarly, operational noise 

associated with mining and retort activities could, in the absence of mitigation, exceed EPA 

guidelines at some project locations or nearby sensitive receptors. Noise generated as a result of 

project-related vehicular traffic is not expected to exceed EPA guideline levels except for short 

durations and very close to road or high traffic areas. 

 In the absence of lease- and project-specific information, it is not possible at the level of 

this PEIS to identify the duration and magnitude of any project-related changes in noise levels. 

Changes in ambient noise levels from project development could occur wherever a project is 

located within the 430,686 acres identified for application for leasing under Alternative 1. 

6.2.1.7 Ecological Resources 

 Under Alternative 1, a total of 430,686 acres of land in Utah is available for application 

for commercial tar sands development. These lands support a wide variety of biota and their 

habitats (Section 3.7). Ecological resources in these areas are not expected to be affected by the 

availability of these lands for leasing; however, ecological resources could be affected by future 

commercial development of tar sands in and around the 430,686 acres of available lands. The 

following sections describe the potential impacts on ecological resources that may result with 

commercial tar sands development within the areas identified as available for application for 

commercial leasing under Alternative 1. 

 The magnitude of potential impacts on specific ecological resources that could occur 

from commercial tar sands development of areas identified as available for application for 

leasing in Alternative 1 would depend on the specific location of the future commercial projects 

as well as on the specific project design. 

 6.2.1.7.1 Aquatic Resources. Under Alternative 1, 430,686 acres of land in Utah are 

available for application for commercial tar sands development. There are no impacts on aquatic 

habitats associated with this land use designation. Impacts could result, however, from post-lease 

construction and operation as described in Section 5.8.1.1. These impacts would be considered in 

project-specific NEPA analyses that would be conducted at the commercial lease and 

development phases of projects. 

 Potential impacts on aquatic resources from tar sands development could result primarily 

from increased turbidity and sedimentation, changes in water table levels, degradation of surface 

water quality (e.g., alteration of water temperature, salinity, and nutrient levels), release of toxic 

substances to surface water, and increased public access to aquatic habitats as described in 

Section 5.8.1.1. As described in Section 5.8.1.1, there is a potential for development and 

production activities in upland areas to affect surface water and groundwater beyond the area 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-338 

where surface disturbance or water withdrawals are occurring. Consequently, this analysis 

considers the potential for impacts on waterways up to 2 mi beyond the boundary of the lands 

that would be allocated for potential leasing under this alternative. However, as project 

development activities are located more distant from waterways, the potential for negative 

effects on aquatic resources is reduced. For the analysis of potential impacts under each of the 

alternatives considered in the PEIS, it was assumed that the potential for negative impacts on 

aquatic resources increases as the area potentially affected (i.e., the area that would be 

considered for leasing) increases and as the number and extent of waterways within a 2-mi zone 

surrounding those areas increases. 

 Under Alternative 1, there are nine perennial streams and about 28 mi of perennial stream 

habitat within the STSAs of Utah that are directly overlain by areas potentially available for tar 

sands development (Table 6.2.1-4). When an additional 2-mi zone surrounding these areas is 

considered, there are 20 perennial streams and about 185 mi of perennial stream habitat that 

could be affected by future development activities (Table 6.2.1-5). The development of 

commercial tar sands projects in the areas identified under Alternative 1 could affect aquatic 

biota and their habitats during project construction and operations, thereby resulting in shortand/or long-term changes (disturbance or loss) in the abundance and distribution of affected 

biota and their habitats. As described in Section 5.1.1.1, impacts from water quality degradation 

and water depletions could affect resources not only in areas within or immediately adjacent to 

leased areas, but also in areas farther downstream in affected watersheds. The nature and 

magnitude of impacts, as well as the specific resources affected, would depend on the location of 

the areas where project construction and facilities occur, the aquatic resources present in those 

areas, and the mitigation measures implemented. 

 The types of aquatic habitats and organisms that could 

be impacted by future development in the vicinity of the 

STSAs are described in Section 3.7.1.2, and some of these 

aquatic habitats are known to, or are likely to, contain 

federally listed endangered fish, state-listed or BLMdesignated sensitive species (Section 3.7.4), and other native 

fish and invertebrate species that could be negatively affected 

by development. Specific impacts would depend greatly upon 

the locations and methods of extraction used by future 

projects. Project-specific NEPA analyses would be conducted 

prior to any future leasing to evaluate potential impacts in 

greater detail. 

 6.2.1.7.2 Plant Communities and Habitats. Under 

Alternative 1, 430,686 acres of land in Utah are available for 

application for commercial tar sands leasing. No impacts on 

plant communities and habitats associated with identifying 

lands as available for application for commercial leasing are 

expected. Impacts could result, however, from post-lease 

construction and operation as described in Section 5.8.1.2. 

TABLE 6.2.1-4 Perennial 

Streams Occurring in Utah 

within the Lease Areas 

Identified under Alternative 1 

Stream 

Length of 

Stream (mi) 

 

Tabyago Canyon 2.0 

Bitter Creek 0.7 

Center Fork 1.9 

Sand Wash 0.5 

Sweetwater Canyon 6.0 

Wells Draw 1.1 

Cottonwood Canyon 5.1 

Dry Creek 5.9 

Nine-Mile Creek 5.2 

 

Total 28.4 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-339 

TABLE 6.2.1-5 Streams and Approximate Miles of Each Stream in STSAs and in 

the Vicinitya of Areas To Be Considered for Leasing under Alternatives 1, 2, and 4 

Length of Stream(mi) 

Stream Within STSAs Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 4 

 

Big Water Canyon 9.4 –b – – 

Bitter Creek 18.1 17.6 17.0 17.6 

Center Fork 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 

Cliff Creek 13.5 13.5 13.1 13.5 

Colorado River 10.5 – – – 

Cottonwood Canyon 15.1 15.1 13.2 15.1 

Deep Creek 4.0 2.3 – 2.3 

Dirty Devil River 22.0 13.9 7.4 13.9 

Dry Creek 14.9 14.9 14.2 14.9 

Eagle Canyon 3.2 0.4 0.1 0.4 

Green River 9.7 4.8 – 4.8 

Halls Creek 3.3 – – – 

Horse Canyon 7.8 – – – 

Joe Hole Wash 1.0 – – – 

Mosby Creek 5.1 2.2 – 2.2 

Nine Mile Creek 22.5 22.2 21.7 21.7 

No Name Availablec 1.4 – – – 

Pariette Draw 7.0 4.4 – 4.4 

Pleasant Valley Wash 5.7 4.8 – 4.8 

Right Fork Indian Canyon 1.5 – – – 

San Rafael River 37.2 26.6 6.0 26.7 

Sand Wash 4.0 3.9 1.4 3.9 

South Fork Avintaquin Creek 4.0 1.1 – 1.1 

Sowers Canyon 2.9 2.8 – 2.8 

Sweetwater Canyon 14.5 14.5 13.8 14.5 

Tabyago Canyon 14.3 7.4 7.4 11.4 

Wells Draw 7.3 6.8 6.5 6.8 

Whiterocks River 6.9 – – – 

Total miles 272.2 184.9 127.5 188.3 

a Stream lengths for alternatives include portions of streams within each potential allocation 

area and a 2-mi zone surrounding the potential allocation area.

b A dash indicates that the stream does not fall within a potential allocation area or within a 

2-mi buffer surrounding the potential allocation area under this alternative.

c No name was given for this stream in the GIS database used for analysis in this PEIS.

These impacts would be considered in greater detail in project-specific NEPA analyses that 

would be conducted at the commercial lease and development phases of projects. 

 Areas identified as available for application for commercial leasing under Alternative 1 

support a wide variety of plant communities and habitats (see Section 3.7.2). These areas include 

approximately 6,874 acres that are currently identified in BLM land use plans for the protection 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-340 

of riparian habitats, floodplains, and special status plant species. Direct impacts on these 

resources would not occur in these areas. Direct and indirect impacts could be incurred in the 

remaining areas during project construction and operation extend over a period of several 

decades (especially within facility and infrastructure footprints) (see Section 5.8.1.2). Some 

impacts (e.g., habitat loss) could continue beyond the termination of tar sands production. 

 Direct impacts from future construction and operation activities would include the 

destruction of vegetation and habitat during land clearing on the lease site and where ancillary 

facilities, such as access roads, pipelines, transmission lines, and employer-provided housing, 

would be developed. Soils disturbed during construction would be susceptible to the introduction 

and establishment of non-native invasive species, which in turn could greatly reduce the success 

of establishment of native plant communities during reclamation of project areas and create a 

source of future colonization and subsequent degradation of adjacent undisturbed areas. Plant 

communities and habitats could also be adversely affected by changes in water quality or 

availability, resulting in plant mortality or reduced growth, with subsequent changes in 

community composition and structure and declines in habitat quality. Indirect impacts on 

terrestrial and wetland habitats on or off the project site could result from land clearing and 

exposed soil; soil compaction; and changes in topography, surface drainage, and infiltration 

characteristics. These impacts could lead to changes in the abundance and distribution of plant 

species and changes in community structure, as well the introduction or spread of invasive 

species. 

 Affected plant communities and habitats could incur short- and/or long-term changes in 

species composition, abundance, and distribution. While many impacts would be local (occurring 

within construction and operation footprints and in the immediate surrounding area), the 

introduction of invasive species could affect much larger areas. The nature and magnitude of 

these impacts, as well as the communities or habitats affected, would depend on the location of 

the areas where project construction and facilities would occur, the plant communities and 

habitats present in those areas, and the mitigation measures implemented to address impacts. 

 The area available for application for commercial leasing under Alternative 1 includes 

locations that support oil shale endemic plant species. Local populations of oil shale endemics, 

which typically occur as small scattered populations on a limited number of sites, could be 

reduced or lost as a result of tar sands development activities. Establishment and long-term 

survival of these species on reclaimed land may be difficult. 

 The lands available under this alternative include one ACEC, Nine Mile Canyon. This 

ACEC includes sensitive plant species. Direct and indirect impacts on these sensitive species 

could occur. However, stipulations that are currently identified in BLM land use plans that 

address sensitive resources apply to this ACEC. 

 Three ACECs that include rare plant species and/or rare or important plant communities 

are located adjacent to the Alternative 1 footprint: Pariette Wetland, San Rafael Reef, and Leers 

Canyon. Three ACECs with rare plant species and/or rare or important plant communities are 

located near (within 5 mi) the Alternative 1 footprint: Red Mountain-Dry Fork (3.1 mi), Raven 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-341 

Ridge (1.9 mi), and Cottonwood-Diamond Watershed (0.6 mi). Indirect impacts on the sensitive 

species or communities within these ACECs could occur. 

 6.2.1.7.3 Wildlife. Under Alternative 1, a total of 430,686 acres of lands in Utah is 

available for application for commercial tar sands leasing. While no impacts on wildlife species 

associated with lands identified as available for application for commercial leasing are expected, 

impacts could result from post-lease construction and operations as described in Section 5.8.1.3. 

These impacts would be considered in greater detail in project-specific NEPA analyses that 

would be conducted at the commercial lease and development phases of projects. These areas 

and surrounding locations support a diverse array of wildlife and habitats (see Section 3.7.3). 

Various stipulations in the BLM RMPs provide protection for different wildlife species. These 

stipulations include lands designated as (1) NSO (where the BLM does not allow long-term 

ground-disturbing activities [i.e., with an impact that would last longer than 2 years]), (2) CSU 

(where the BLM places special restrictions, including shifting a ground-disturbing activity by 

more than 200 m from the proposed location to another location to protect a specific resource 

such as a raptor nest), and (3) subject to TL (where the BLM may allow specified activities but 

not during certain sensitive seasons, such as when raptors are nesting or when big game are on 

their winter ranges). Table 6.2.1-6 identifies the amount of habitat protected by these stipulations 

in areas available for application for tar sands leasing in Alternative 1. In most instances, the 

stipulations for wildlife are TLs. In the White Canyon STSA, there are stipulations listed as 

closed to leasing, CSU/TL, NSO, and TLs that total 7,000 acres; however, no information was 

available as to whether these stipulations applied to wildlife. 

 Areas available for application for 

leasing in Alternative 1 contain areas identified 

by state natural resource agencies as seasonal 

habitat for big game species. These areas 

include mule deer and elk winter and summer 

ranges (Figures 6.2.1-2 and 6.2.1-3, 

respectively). Table 6.2.1-7 presents the amount 

of these habitats identified by the State of Utah 

that are included in the Alternative 1 areas 

available for application for commercial leasing 

and that could be impacted by potential future 

commercial tar sands development. 

 Impacts on wildlife from the 

construction and operation of future 

commercial tar sands projects could occur in a 

number of ways and could be related to 

(1) habitat loss, alteration, or fragmentation (as 

a result of construction); (2) disturbance and 

displacement of biota (by construction and 

operation activities and the presence of project 

infrastructure); (3) mortality (from construction 

TABLE 6.2.1-6 Wildlife Habitat Protected by 

Stipulations in BLM RMPs within the 

Alternative 1 Tar Sands Lease Areas 

Habitat Description 

Amount of Habitat 

(acres)a

 

Birds 

 Raptor nesting areas 7 (18)b

 

Mammals 

 Elk crucial winter range 112,809 (147,676) 

 Elk calving habitat 26,804 (30,387) 

 Mule deer crucial winter range 96,564 (104,011) 

 Mule deer fawning habitat 23,584 (25,574) 

 Mule deer migration corridor 41,588 (42,332) 

a Acreages may be overestimated because of 

unknown degree of habitat overlap among species 

or habitat types for a species. For these reasons, 

columns should not be totaled. 

b Numbers in parentheses are the wildlife habitat 

acreage identified for protection within the most 

geologically prospective lands. 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-342 

FIGURE 6.2.1-2 Lands Available for Application for Tar Sands Leasing under Alternative 1 in 

Relation to the Summer and Winter Ranges of the Mule Deer 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-343 

FIGURE 6.2.1-3 Lands Available for Application for Tar Sands Leasing under Alternative 1 in 

Relation to the Summer and Winter Ranges of the Elk 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-344 

activities and collisions with project infrastructure and 

vehicles); (4) exposure to hazardous materials; and 

(5) increase in human access. These impacts can result in 

changes in habitat use; changes in behavior; collisions 

with structures or vehicles; changes in predator 

populations; and chronic or acute toxicity from 

hydrocarbons, herbicides, or other contaminant exposures. 

 Wildlife could also be affected by human activities 

not directly associated with commercial tar sands projects 

or workforces, but instead with the potentially increased 

human access to BLM-administered lands that had 

previously received little use. The construction of new 

access roads or improvements to old access roads may 

lead to increased human access into the area. Potential 

impacts associated with increased access include the 

disturbance of wildlife from human activities, including an increase in legal and illegal harvest; 

an increase of invasive vegetation; and an increase in the incidence of fires. 

 The potential for impacts on wildlife and their habitats by commercial tar sands 

development is directly related to the amount of land disturbance that would occur with a 

commercial project (including its ancillary facilities, such as power plants and utility and 

pipeline ROWs), the duration and timing of construction and operation periods, and the habitat 

affected by development (i.e., the location of the project). Indirect effects, such as impacts 

resulting from the erosion of disturbed land surfaces, water depletions, contamination, and 

disturbance and harassment, are also considered. The magnitude of these impacts is also 

considered to be proportional to the amount of land disturbance. 

 6.2.1.7.4 Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species. Under Alternative, 1, 

430,686 acres of land in Utah would remain available for application for leasing for commercial 

development of tar sands. (See Section 2.3.2 for a full description of Alternative 1.). No impacts 

on threatened and endangered species associated with this land use plan amendment action are 

expected. Impacts could result, however, from post-lease construction and operation as described 

in Section 5.8.1.4. These impacts would be considered in greater detail in project-specific NEPA 

analyses that would be conducted at the commercial lease and development phases of projects. In 

addition, the BLM would require all projects to comply with ESA regulations and those policies 

provided under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. 

Various stipulations are included in the BLM RMPs that provide protection for different 

threatened, endangered, and sensitive species. These include (1) lands designated as NSO (where 

the BLM does not allow long-term ground-disturbing activities [i.e., with an impact that would 

last longer than 2 years]), (2) CSU, and (3) lands designated as TL. Table 6.2.1-8 identifies the 

amount of habitats protected by these stipulations in areas available for application for tar sands 

leasing in Alternative 1. In most instances, the stipulations for these species are TLs. In the 

White Canyon STSA, there are stipulations listed as closed to leasing, CSU/TL, NSO, and TLs 

TABLE 6.2.1-7 State-Identified 

Elk and Mule Deer Habitat Present 

in the Alternative 1 Tar Sands 

Lease Areas 

Habitat 

Description 

Area of Habitat 

(acres) 

 

Mule Deer 

Winter habitat 228,122 

Summer habitat 77,172 

 

Elk 

Winter habitat 194,354 

Summer habitat 65,366 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-345 

that total 7,000 acres; however, no information was 

available as to whether these stipulations applied to 

threatened, endangered, and sensitive species. 

 Under Alternative 1, 71 of the 76 federal 

candidate, BLM-designated sensitive, and statelisted species listed in Table 6.2.1-9, and 22 of the 

23 federally listed threatened or endangered species 

listed in Table 6.2.1-10 could occur in areas that are 

available for application for commercial leasing of 

tar sands. This determination is based on records of 

occurrence in project counties, species occurrences 

from state natural heritage programs,20 and the 

presence of potentially suitable habitat.21 Potential 

lease areas include about 2,200 acres of critical 

habitat for the Mexican spotted owl (Strix 

occidentalis lucida); designated critical habitat for 

Colorado River endangered fishes may also occur 

downstream within 10 mi of potential tar sands 

lease areas (Figure 6.2.1-4). Greater sage-grouse 

(Centrocercus urophasianus) core habitats22 are 

shown in Figure 6.2.1-5. Potential tar sands lease 

areas under Alternative 1 intersect approximately 

86,057 acres of core and priority sage-grouse habitat in Utah. 

 The potential for impacts on threatened, endangered, and sensitive species (and their 

habitats) by commercial tar sands development is directly related to the amount of land 

disturbance that could occur with a commercial project (including its ancillary facilities, such as 

power plants and utility and pipeline ROWs), the duration and timing of construction and 

operation periods, and the habitats affected by development. Indirect effects, such as impacts 

resulting from the erosion of disturbed land surfaces, surface or groundwater depletions, 

contamination, and disturbance and harassment of animal species, are also considered, but their 

relative magnitude is considered proportional to the amount of land disturbance. 

 

20 Spatial data were obtained from state natural heritage program or conservation offices that represented USGS 

quad-level or township range-level occurrences of species (CNHP 2011; UDWR 2011; WYNDD 2011a). A 

spatial analysis was performed to determine the distance of recorded occurrences of each species to the lease 

areas. For species tracked in these state databases, these distance measurements are provided in Tables 6.2.1-9 

and 6.2.1-10. 

21 Spatial models representing potentially suitable habitat of terrestrial vertebrate wildlife species were obtained 

from USGS (2007) and WYNDD (2011b). For species with an available habitat model, a spatial analysis was 

performed to quantify the amount of potentially suitable habitat within the lease areas. This quantification is 

presented in Tables 6.2.1-9 and 6.2.1-10. 

22 Data and habitats considered as core or priority greater sage-grouse habitat for this PEIS are discussed in a text 

box in Section 3.7.4.3.1. 

TABLE 6.2.1-8 Habitat for Threatened, 

Endangered, and Sensitive Species 

Protected by Stipulations in BLM RMPs 

within the Alternative 1 Tar Sands Lease 

Areas

Habitat Description 

Area of Habitat 

(acres)a

 

Plants 

Graham’s penstemon habitat 1,625 (1,625)b

 

Birds 

Bald eagle habitat 36 (280) 

Sage-grouse habitat 42,017 (53,866) 

a Acreage may be overestimated because of 

unknown degree of habitat overlap among 

species or habitat types for a species. For 

these reasons, columns should not be totaled. 

b Numbers in parentheses are the acreages 

identified for protection within the most 

geologically prospective lands. 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-346 

TABLE 6.2.1-9 Potential Effects of Commercial Tar Sands Development in Utah under 

Alternative 1 on BLM-Designated Sensitive Species, Federal Candidates for Listing, State-Listed 

Species, and State Species of Special Concern 

Scientific Name Common Name Status 

Utah Counties 

within the Study Area 

in Which Species May 

Occur Potential for Effect 

 

Plants 

Amsonia jonesii Jones blue star BLM-S Duchesne, Emery, 

Garfield, Grand, 

San Juan, Uintah, 

Wayne 

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the STSAs. Quad-level 

occurrences are within 13 mi from the 

STSAs. 

 

Aquilegia 

scopulorum var.

goodrichii 

Utah columbine BLM-S Carbon, Duchesne, 

Emery, Grand, Uintah 

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Arabis 

vivariensis 

Park rockcress BLM-S Uintah Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Astragalus 

detritalis 

Debris milkvetch BLM-S Duchesne, Uintah Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the STSAs. Quad-level 

occurrences of this species intersect the 

STSAs. 

 

Astragalus 

duchesnensis 

Duchesne 

milkvetch 

BLM-S Duchesne, Uintah Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the STSAs. Quad-level 

occurrences of this species intersect the 

STSAs. 

 

Astragalus 

equisolensis 

Horseshoe 

milkvetch 

BLM-S Uintah Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Astragalus 

hamiltonii 

Hamilton’s 

milkvetch 

BLM-S Uintah Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Astragalus 

musiniensis 

Ferron milkvetch BLM-S Emery, Garfield, 

Grand, Wayne 

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the STSAs. Quad-level 

occurrences are within 13 mi from the 

STSAs. 

 

Astragalus 

naturitensis 

Naturita 

milkvetch 

BLM-S San Juan Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the STSAs. Quad-level 

occurrences are within 8 mi from the 

STSAs. 

 

Astragalus 

piscator 

Fisher Towers 

milkvetch 

BLM-S Garfield, Grand, 

San Juan, Wayne 

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the STSAs. 

 

Astragalus 

rafaelensis 

San Rafael 

milkvetch 

BLM-S Emery, Grand Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the STSAs. 

 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-347 

TABLE 6.2.1-9 (Cont.)

Scientific Name Common Name Status 

Utah Counties 

within the Study Area 

in Which Species May 

Occur Potential for Effect 

 

Plants (Cont.) 

Cirsium ownbeyi Ownbey’s thistle BLM-S Uintah Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the STSAs. 

 

Cleomella 

palmeriana var. 

goodrichii 

Goodrich 

cleomella 

BLM-S Uintah Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Cryptantha 

barnebyi 

Barneby’s cat’seye BLM-S Uintah Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Cryptantha 

caespitosa 

Caespitose cat’seye BLM-S Carbon, Duchesne, 

Uintah 

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the STSAs. Quad-level 

occurrences of this species intersect the 

STSAs. 

 

Cryptantha 

grahamii 

Graham’s cat’seye BLM-S Uintah Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Cryptantha 

osterhoutii 

Osterhout cat’s 

eye 

BLM-S Emery, Garfield, 

Grand, San Juan, 

Wayne 

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the STSAs. 

 

Cryptantha 

rollinsii 

Rollins’ cat’s eye BLM-S Duchesne, 

San Raphael, Uintah, 

Wayne 

Potential for negative impact. Quad-level 

occurrences of this species intersect the 

STSAs. 

 

Cymopterus 

duchesnensis 

Uinta Basin 

spring-parsley

BLM-S Duchesne, Uintah Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the STSAs. 

 

Eriogonum 

contortum 

Grand buckwheat BLM-S Grand Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the STSAs. Quad-level 

occurrences are within 13 mi from the 

STSAs. 

 

Eriogonum 

ephedroides 

Ephedra 

buckwheat 

BLM-S Uintah Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the STSAs. Quad-level 

occurrences of this species intersect the 

STSAs. 

 

Frasera 

ackermanae 

Ackerman frasera BLM-S Uintah Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Gentianella 

tortuosa 

Utah gentian BLM-S Duchesne, Emery, 

Garfield, Uintah 

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the STSAs. Quad-level 

occurrences of this species intersect the 

STSAs. 

 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-348 

TABLE 6.2.1-9 (Cont.)

Scientific Name Common Name Status 

Utah Counties 

within the Study Area 

in Which Species May 

Occur Potential for Effect 

 

Plants (Cont.) 

Gilia stenothyrsa Narrow-stem gilia BLM-S Carbon, Duchesne, 

Emery, Uintah 

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the STSAs. Quad-level 

occurrences of this species intersect the 

STSAs. 

 

Hymenoxys 

lapidicola 

Rock hymenoxys BLM-S Uintah Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Lepidium huberi Huber’s 

pepperplant 

BLM-S Uintah Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Listera borealis Northern 

twayblade 

BLM-S Duchesne, San Juan No impact. Suitable habitat is not likely to 

occur in the STSAs. Nearest occurrences are 

approximately 28 mi from the STSAs. 

 

Lygodesmia 

doloresensis 

Dolores River 

skeletonplant

BLM-S Grand Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the STSAs. Quad-level 

occurrences are within 13 mi from the 

STSAs. 

 

Lepidium huberi Huber’s 

pepperplant 

BLM-S Uintah Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Mentzelia 

goodrichii 

Goodrich’s 

blazingstar 

BLM-S Duchesne, Uintah Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Mimulus 

eastwoodiae 

Eastwood 

monkey-flower 

BLM-S Garfield, Grand, 

San Juan 

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the STSAs. 

 

Minuartia 

nuttallii 

Nuttall sandwort BLM-S Duchesne Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the STSAs. 

 

Parthenium 

ligulatum 

Ligulate feverfew BLM-S Wayne Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the STSAs. 

 

Pediomelum 

aromaticum 

Paradox breadroot BLM-S Grand, San Juan Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the STSAs. 

 

Penstemon 

scariosus var. 

albifluvis 

White River 

beardtongue

ESA-C; Uintah Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the STSAs. Quad-level 

occurrences of this species intersect the 

STSAs. 

 

Phacelia 

argylensis 

Argyle Canyon 

phacelia 

BLM-S Uintah Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-349 

TABLE 6.2.1-9 (Cont.)

Scientific Name Common Name Status 

Utah Counties 

within the Study Area 

in Which Species May 

Occur Potential for Effect 

 

Plants (Cont.) 

Townsendia 

strigosa 

Strigose Easterdaisy BLM-S Duchesne, Uintah Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the STSAs. 

 

Yucca sterilis Spanish bayonet BLM-S Uintah Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Invertebrates 

Speyeria 

nokomis nokomis 

Great Basin 

silverspot 

butterfly 

BLM-S Duchesne, Uintah Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the STSAs. 

 

Fish 

Catostomus 

discobolus 

Bluehead sucker BLM-S Carbon, Duchesne, 

Emery, Garfield, 

Grand, San Juan, 

Uintah 

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the STSAs. Quad-level 

occurrences of this species intersect the 

STSAs. 

 

Catostomus 

latipinnis 

Flannelmouth 

sucker 

BLM-S Carbon, Duchesne, 

Emery, Garfield, 

Grand, San Juan, 

Uintah; Wayne 

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the STSAs. Quad-level 

occurrences of this species intersect the 

STSAs. 

 

Catostomus 

platyrhynchus 

Mountain sucker BLM-S Carbon, Duchesne, 

Emery, Grand, Uintah 

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the STSAs.

 

Gila robusta Roundtail chub BLM-S Carbon, Duchesne, 

Emery, Garfield, 

Grand, San Juan, 

Uintah, Wayne 

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in or near the STSAs. 

Quad-level occurrences of this species 

intersect the STSAs. 

 

Oncorhynchus 

clarkii 

pleuriticus 

Colorado River 

cutthroat trout 

BLM-S Duchesne, Garfield, 

Uintah, Wayne 

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in or near the STSAs. 

Quad-level occurrences of this species 

intersect the STSAs. 

 

Amphibians 

Bufo boreas Boreal toad BLM-S; 

UT-SC 

Carbon, Duchesne, 

Emery, Garfield, 

Uintah, Wayne 

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 10,518 acres of potentially 

suitable habitat for this species occurs in the 

STSAs. Quad-level occurrences are within 

5 mi of the STSAs. 

 

Hyla arenicolor Canyon treefrog BLM-S Garfield, Grand, 

Wayne, San Juan 

Potential for negative impact.

Approximately 15,500 acres of potentially 

suitable habitat for this species occurs in the 

STSAs. 

 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-350 

TABLE 6.2.1-9 (Cont.)

Scientific Name Common Name Status 

Utah Counties 

within the Study Area 

in Which Species May 

Occur Potential for Effect 

 

Amphibians 

(Cont.) 

 

Rana luteiventris Columbia spotted 

frog 

BLM-S Wasatch No impact. Suitable habitat for the species 

does not occur in the STSAs, and it is not 

known to occur in the vicinity of the STSAs. 

Nearest occurrences are approximately 30 

mi from the STSAs. 

 

Rana pipiens Northern leopard 

frog

BLM-S Carbon, Duchesne, 

Emery, Garfield, 

Grand, San Juan, 

Uintah, Wayne 

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 797 acres of potentially 

suitable habitat for this species occurs in the 

STSAs. This species is not known to occur 

in the vicinity of any STSAs. Nearest 

occurrences are approximately 20 mi from 

the STSAs. 

 

Spea 

intermontana 

Great basin 

spadefoot 

BLM-S Carbon, Duchesne, 

Emery, Garfield, 

Grand, San Juan, 

Uintah, Wayne 

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 359,205 acres of potentially 

suitable habitat for this species occurs in the 

STSAs. Quad-level occurrences of this 

species intersect the STSAs. 

 

Reptiles 

Elaphe guttata Corn snake BLM-S; 

UT-SC 

Grand, San Juan Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 8,625 acres of potentially 

suitable habitat for this species occurs in the 

STSAs. Quad-level occurrences of this 

species intersect the STSAs. 

 

Liochlorophis 

vernalis 

Smooth 

greensnake 

BLM-S; 

UT-SC 

Carbon, Duchesne, 

Grand, San Juan, 

Uintah 

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 4,056 acres of potentially 

suitable habitat for this species occurs in the 

STSAs. Quad-level occurrences of this 

species intersect the STSAs. 

 

Xantusia vigilis Desert night 

lizard 

BLM-S; 

UT-SC 

Garfield, San Juan Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 3,359 acres of potentially 

suitable habitat for this species occurs in the 

STSAs. Quad-level occurrences of this 

species intersect the STSAs. 

 

Birds 

Accipiter gentilis Northern 

goshawk 

BLM-S Carbon, Duchesne, 

Emery, Garfield, 

Grand, San Juan, 

Uintah, Wayne 

Potential for negative impact.

Approximately 104,173 acres of potentially 

suitable habitat for this species occurs in the 

STSAs. 

 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-351 

TABLE 6.2.1-9 (Cont.)

Scientific Name Common Name Status 

Utah Counties 

within the Study Area 

in Which Species May 

Occur Potential for Effect 

 

Birds (Cont.) 

Ammodramus 

savannarum 

Grasshopper 

sparrow 

UT-SC Duchesne, Uintah, 

Wasatch 

No impact. Suitable habitat for the species 

does not occur in the STSAs. 

 

Asio flammeus Short-eared owl BLM-S; 

UT-SC

Carbon, Duchesne, 

Emery, Grand, 

Garfield, San Juan, 

Uintah, Wayne 

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat for the species does not occur in the 

STSAs. Quad-level occurrences of this 

species intersect the STSAs. 

 

Athene 

cunicularia 

Burrowing owl BLM-S; 

UT-SC 

Carbon, Duchesne, 

Emery, Garfield, 

Grand, San Juan, 

Uintah, Wayne 

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 154,858 acres of potentially 

suitable habitat for this species occurs in the 

STSAs. 

 

Buteo regalis Ferruginous hawk BLM-S; 

UT-SC 

Carbon, Duchesne, 

Emery, Garfield, 

Grand, San Juan, 

Uintah, Wayne 

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 135,430 acres of potentially 

suitable habitat for this species occurs in the 

STSAs. 

 

Centrocercus 

minimus 

Gunnison sagegrouse ESA-C; 

UT-SC 

Grand, San Juan Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 455 acres of potentially 

suitable habitat for this species occurs in the 

STSAs. Nearest occurrences are 

approximately 30 mi from the STSAs. 

 

Centrocercus 

urophasianus 

Greater sagegrouseESA-C; 

BLM-S; 

UT-SC 

Carbon, Duchesne, 

Emery, Garfield, 

Grand, San Juan, 

Uintah, Wayne 

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 106,835 acres of potentially 

suitable habitat for this species occurs in the 

STSAs. Quad-level occurrences of this 

species intersect the STSAs. 

 

Charadrius 

montanus 

Mountain plover BLM-S; 

UT-SC 

Duchesne, Uintah Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 9,152 acres of potentially 

suitable habitat for this species occurs in the 

STSAs. Quad-level occurrences of this 

species intersect the STSAs. 

 

Coccyzus 

americanus 

occidentalis 

Western yellowbilled cuckoo ESA-C; 

BLM-S 

Duchesne, Garfield, 

Grand, San Juan, 

Uintah, Wayne 

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat for the species may occur in riparian 

habitats near the STSAs. Quad-level 

occurrences of this species intersect the 

STSAs. 

 

Cypseloides 

niger 

Black swift BLM-S; 

UT-SC 

Duchesne, Uintah Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 14 acres of potentially 

suitable habitat for this species occurs in the 

STSAs. Quad-level occurrences are within 

12 mi of the STSAs. 

 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-352 

TABLE 6.2.1-9 (Cont.)

Scientific Name Common Name Status 

Utah Counties 

within the Study Area 

in Which Species May 

Occur Potential for Effect 

 

Birds (Cont.) 

Dolichonyx 

oryzivorus 

Bobolink BLM-S; 

UT-SC 

Carbon, Duchesne, 

Emery, Garfield, 

Grand, San Juan, 

Uintah, Wayne 

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat for the species may occur in the 

STSAs. Quad-level occurrences of this 

species intersect the STSAs. 

 

Haliaeetus 

leucocephalus 

Bald eagle BLM-S Carbon, Duchesne, 

Emery, Garfield, 

Grand, San Juan, 

Uintah, Wayne 

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 253,181 acres of potentially 

suitable habitat for this species occurs in the 

STSAs. Quad-level occurrences of this 

species intersect the STSAs. 

 

Melanerpes 

lewis 

Lewis’s 

woodpecker 

BLM-S; 

UT-SC 

Carbon, Duchesne, 

Emery, Garfield, 

Grand, San Juan, 

Uintah, Wayne

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 12,710 acres of potentially 

suitable habitat for this species occurs in the 

STSAs. Quad-level occurrences of this 

species intersect the STSAs. 

 

Numenius 

americanus 

Long-billed 

curlew

BLM-S; 

UT-SC; 

Carbon, Duchesne, 

Emery, Garfield, 

Grand, San Juan, 

Uintah, Wayne 

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 2,590 acres of potentially 

suitable habitat for this species occurs in the 

STSAs. Quad-level occurrences of this 

species intersect the STSAs. 

 

Pelecanus 

erythrorhynchos 

American white 

pelican 

BLM-S; 

UT-SC 

Carbon, Duchesne, 

Emery, Garfield, 

Grand, San Juan, 

Uintah, Wayne 

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 3,629 acres of potentially 

suitable habitat for this species occurs in the 

STSAs. Quad-level occurrences of this 

species intersect the STSAs. 

 

Picoides 

tridactylus 

Three-toed 

woodpecker 

BLM-S; 

UT-SC 

Carbon, Duchesne, 

Emery, Garfield, 

Grand, San Juan, 

Uintah, Wayne 

Potential for negative impact.

Approximately 2,847 acres of potentially 

suitable habitat for this species occurs in the 

STSAs.

 

Mammals 

Brachylagus 

idahoensis 

Pygmy rabbit BLM-S; 

UT-SC 

Garfield, Wayne No impact. Suitable habitat for the species 

does not occur in the STSAs. 

 

Corynorhinus 

townsendii 

pallescens 

Townsend’s bigeared bat BLM-S; 

UT-SC 

Carbon, Duchesne, 

Emery, Garfield, 

Grand, San Juan, 

Uintah, Wayne 

Potential for negative impact.

Approximately 386,746 acres of potentially 

suitable habitat for this species occurs in the 

STSAs. Quad-level occurrences of this 

species intersect the STSAs. 

 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-353 

TABLE 6.2.1-9 (Cont.)

Scientific Name Common Name Status 

Utah Counties 

within the Study Area 

in Which Species May 

Occur Potential for Effect 

 

Mammals (Cont.) 

Cynomys 

gunnisoni 

Gunnison’s 

prairie dog 

ESA-C; 

BLM-S; 

UT-SC 

Grand, San Juan No impact. Suitable habitat for the species 

does not occur in the STSAs, and it is not 

known to occur in the vicinity of the STSAs. 

Nearest occurrences are approximately 40 

mi from the STSAs. 

 

Cynomys 

leucurus 

White-tailed 

prairie dog 

BLM-S; 

UT-SC 

Carbon, Duchesne, 

Emery, Grand, Uintah 

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 128,626 acres of potentially 

suitable habitat for this species occurs in the 

STSAs. Quad-level occurrences of this 

species intersect the STSAs. 

 

Euderma 

maculatum 

Spotted bat BLM-S; 

UT-SC 

Duchesne, Garfield, 

Grand, San Juan, 

Uintah, Wayne 

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 301,048 acres of potentially 

suitable habitat for this species occurs in the 

STSAs. Quad-level occurrences of this 

species intersect the STSAs. 

 

Idionycteris 

phyllotis 

Allen’s big-eared 

bat 

BLM-S; 

UT-SC 

Garfield, Grand, 

San Juan, Wayne 

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat for the species may occur in the 

STSAs. Quad-level occurrences are within 

13 mi of the STSAs. 

 

Lasiurus 

blossevillii 

Western red bat BLM-S; 

UT-SC 

Carbon, Emery, 

Grand, Garfield, 

San Juan, Wayne 

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 28 acres of potentially 

suitable habitat for this species occurs in the 

STSAs. Quad-level occurrences are within 

10 mi of the STSAs. 

 

Myotis 

thysanodes 

Fringed myotis BLM-S; 

UT-SC 

Duchesne, Garfield, 

Grand, San Juan, 

Uintah, Wayne 

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 411,285 acres of potentially 

suitable habitat for this species occurs in the 

STSAs. Quad-level occurrences of this 

species intersect the STSAs. 

 

Nyctinomops 

macrotis 

Big free-tailed bat BLM-S; 

UT-SC 

Carbon, Duchesne, 

Emery, Garfield, 

Grand, San Juan, 

Uintah, Wayne 

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 304,777 acres of potentially 

suitable habitat for this species occurs in the 

STSAs. Quad-level occurrences of this 

species intersect the STSAs. 

 

Vulpes macrotis Kit fox BLM-S; 

UT-SC 

Carbon, Duchesne, 

Emery, Garfield, 

Grand, San Juan, 

Uintah, Wayne 

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 31,811 acres of potentially 

suitable habitat for this species occurs in the 

STSAs. Quad-level occurrences of this 

species intersect the STSAs. 

Footnotes on next page. 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-354 

TABLE 6.2.1-9 (Cont.)

a Status categories: BLM-S = listed by the BLM as sensitive; ESA-C = candidate for listing under the ESA; 

UT SC = species of special concern in the state of Utah. 

b Potential impacts are based upon the presence of potentially suitable habitat or recorded occurrences in the vicinity of the 

STSAs. Recorded occurrences were obtained as USGS quad-level or township range-level element occurrence records 

from state natural heritage program offices (CNHP 2011; UDWR 2011; WYNDD 2011a). If available for terrestrial 

vertebrates, SWReGAP animal habitat suitability models (USGS 2007) and terrestrial vertebrate distribution models for 

the state of Wyoming (WYNDD 2011b) were used to determine the presence of potentially suitable habitat in the STSAs.

 Potential impacts on threatened and endangered species (see Section 5.8.1.4) under 

Alternative 1 are fundamentally similar to or the same as impacts on aquatic resources, plant 

communities and habitats, and wildlife described in Sections 5.8.1.1, 5.8.1.2, and 5.8.1.3, 

respectively. The most important difference is the potential consequence of the impacts. Because 

of their low population sizes, threatened and endangered species are far more vulnerable than 

more common and widespread species. Low population size makes them more vulnerable to the 

effects of habitat fragmentation, habitat alteration, habitat degradation, human disturbance and 

harassment, mortality of individuals, and the loss of genetic diversity. Specific impacts 

associated with development would depend on the locations of projects relative to species 

populations and the details of project development. These impacts would be evaluated in detail 

in project-specific assessments and consultations conducted prior to leasing and development. 

6.2.1.8 Visual Resources 

 Under Alternative 1, 430,686 acres of public land in Utah is available for application for 

commercial tar sands development. While these lands support a wide variety of visual resources 

(Section 3.8), these resources would not be affected by the amendment of land use plans to 

identify these potential lease areas. However, visual resources in and around areas available for 

application for leasing could be affected by future commercial development of tar sands. 

 Several scenic resource areas are located within areas identified as available for 

application for leasing under Alternative 1 (Figures 6.2.1-6 through 6.2.1-9). These scenic 

resource areas include: 

• The Lucky Strike, Nine Mile Canyon, Temple Mountain, and Wild Horse 

Canyon ACECs; 

• The White Canyon SRMA; 

• The Dinosaur Diamond Prehistoric National Scenic Highway; 

• The Indian Canyon State Scenic Byway; and 

• The Nine Mile Canyon Backcountry Byway. 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-355 

TABLE 6.2.1-10 Potential Effects of Commercial Tar Sands Development in Utah under 

Alternative 1 on Federally Listed Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Species 

Scientific Name Common Name Statusa

Utah Counties 

within the Study Area 

in Which Species 

May Occur Potential for Effectb

 

Plants 

Cycladenia 

humilis var.

jonesii 

Jones cycladenia ESA-T Emery, Garfield, 

Grand, Uintah 

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the STSAs. Quad-level 

occurrences of this species intersect the 

STSAs. 

 

Erigeron 

maguirei 

Maguire daisy ESA-T Emery, Garfield, 

Wayne 

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the STSAs. 

 

Pediocactus 

despainii 

San Rafael cactus ESA-E Emery, Wayne Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the STSAs. Quad-level 

occurrences of this species intersect the 

STSAs. 

 

Pediocactus 

winkleri 

Winkler cactus ESA-T Emery, Wayne Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the STSAs. Quad-level 

occurrences are within 11 mi from the 

STSAs. 

 

Penstemon 

grahamii 

Graham’s 

beardtongue 

ESA-PT; 

BLM-S 

Duchesne, Uintah Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the STSAs. Quad-level 

occurrences of this species intersect the 

STSAs. 

 

Phacelia 

argillacea 

Clay phacelia ESA-E Wasatch Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the STSAs. Quad-level 

occurrences are within 5 mi of the STSAs. 

 

Schoenocrambe 

argillacea 

Clay reedmustard ESA-T Uintah Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the STSAs. Quad-level 

occurrences of this species intersect the 

STSAs. 

 

Schoenocrambe 

barnebyi 

Barneby reedmustard ESA-E Emery, Wayne Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the STSAs. Quad-level 

occurrences are within 9 mi of the STSAs. 

 

Schoenocrambe 

suffrutescens 

Shrubby reedmustard ESA-E Duchesne, Uintah Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the STSAs. Quad-level 

occurrences of this species intersect the 

STSAs. 

 

Sclerocactus 

brevispinus 

Pariette cactus ESA-T Duchesne, Uintah Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the STSAs. Quad-level 

occurrences of this species intersect the 

STSAs. 

 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-356 

TABLE 6.2.1-10 (Cont.)

Scientific Name Common Name Statusa

Utah Counties 

within the Study Area 

in Which Species May 

Occur Potential for Effectb

 

Plants (Cont.) 

Sclerocactus 

wetlandicus 

Uinta Basin 

hookless cactus 

ESA-T Carbon, Duchesne, 

Uintah 

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the STSAs. Quad-level 

occurrences of this species intersect the 

STSAs. 

 

Sclerocactus 

wrightiae 

Wright fishhook 

cactus 

ESA-E Emery, Wayne Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the STSAs. Quad-level 

occurrences of this species intersect the 

STSAs. 

 

Spiranthes 

diluvialis 

Ute ladies’-tresses ESA-T Duchesne, Garfield, 

Uintah, Wayne 

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the STSAs. Quad-level 

occurrences of this species intersect the 

STSAs. 

 

Townsendia 

aprica 

Last chance 

townsendia 

ESA-T Emery, Wayne Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the STSAs. Quad-level 

occurrences of this species intersect the 

STSAs. 

 

Fish 

Gila cypha Humpback chub ESA-E Carbon, Emery, 

Garfield, Grand, 

San Juan, Uintah, 

Wayne 

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in or near the STSAs. 

Designated critical habitat occurs 

downstream within 10 mi of the STSAs. 

Quad-level occurrences of this species 

intersect the STSAs. 

 

Gila elegans Bonytail ESA-E Carbon, Duchesne, 

Emery, Garfield, 

Grand, San Juan, 

Uintah, Wayne 

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in or near the STSAs. 

Designated critical habitat occurs 

downstream within 10 mi of the STSAs. 

Quad-level occurrences of this species 

intersect the STSAs. 

 

Ptychocheilus 

lucius 

Colorado 

pikeminnow 

ESA-E Carbon, Duchesne, 

Emery, Garfield, 

Grand, San Juan, 

Uintah, Wayne 

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in or near the STSAs. 

Designated critical habitat occurs 

downstream within 10 mi of the STSAs. 

Quad-level occurrences of this species 

intersect the STSAs. 

 

Xyrauchen 

texanus 

Razorback sucker ESA-E Carbon, Emery 

Garfield, Grand, 

San Juan, Uintah, 

Wayne 

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in or near the STSAs. 

Designated critical habitat occurs 

downstream within 10 mi of the STSAs. 

Quad-level occurrences of this species 

intersect the STSAs. 

 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-357 

TABLE 6.2.1-10 (Cont.)

Scientific Name Common Name Statusa

Utah Counties 

within the Study Area 

in Which Species May 

Occur Potential for Effectb

 

Birds 

Empidonax 

traillii extimus 

Southwestern 

willow flycatcher 

ESA-E Carbon, Emery, 

Garfield, Grand, 

San Juan, Uintah, 

Wayne 

Potential for negative impact.

Approximately 21,193 acres of potentially 

suitable habitat for this species occurs in the 

STSAs. 

 

Gymnogyps 

californianus 

California condor ESA-E Grand Potential for negative impact.

Approximately 30,730 acres of potentially 

suitable habitat for this species occurs in the 

STSAs. 

 

Strix occidentalis 

lucida 

Mexican spotted 

owl 

ESA-T Emery, Garfield, 

Grand, San Juan, 

Uintah, Wayne 

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 109,098 acres of potentially 

suitable habitat for this species occurs in the 

STSAs. About 2,200 acres of critical habitat 

intersects the proposed tar sands lease area. 

Quad-level occurrences of this species 

intersect the STSAs. 

 

Mammals 

Lynx canadensis Canada lynx ESA-T Emery, Uintah No impact. Suitable habitat for the species 

does not occur in the STSAs. 

 

Mustela nigripes Black-footed 

ferret 

ESA-XN Carbon, Duchesne, 

Emery, Grand, 

San Juan, Uintah 

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 10,234 acres of potentially 

suitable habitat for this species occurs in the 

STSAs. 

a Status categories: BLM-S = listed by the BLM as sensitive; ESA-E = listed as endangered under the ESA; 

ESA-PT = proposed for listing as a threatened species under the ESA; ESA-T = listed as threatened under the ESA; 

ESA-XN = experimental, nonessential population.

b Potential impacts are based upon the presence of potentially suitable habitat or recorded occurrences in the vicinity of the 

STSAs. Recorded occurrences were obtained as USGS quad-level or township range-level element occurrence records 

from the UDWR (2011). If available for terrestrial vertebrates, SWReGAP animal habitat suitability models (USGS 2007) 

were used to determine the presence of potentially suitable habitat in the STSAs. Spatial data for designated critical habitat 

were obtained from the USFWS Critical Habitat Portal (USFWS 2011).

 Additional scenic resource areas are located within 5 or 15 mi of the Alternative 1 

proposed lease areas (Figures 6.2.1-6 through 6.2.1-9). The 5-mi zone corresponds to the BLM’s 

VRM foreground-middleground distance limit, and the 15-mi zone corresponds to the BLM’s 

background distance limit. Based on the assumption of an unobstructed view of a commercial tar 

sands project, viewers in these areas would be likely to perceive some level of visual impact 

from the project; impacts would be expected to be greater for resources within the foregroundmiddleground distance, and lesser for resources within the background distance. Beyond the 

background distance, the project might be visible but would likely occupy a very small visual 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-358 

FIGURE 6.2.1-4 Designated Critical Habitats of Threatened and Endangered Species That Are in 

or near Pending Tar Sands Lease Areas under Alternative 1 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-359 

FIGURE 6.2.1-5 Distribution of Core and Priority Habitat Areas for Greater Sage-Grouse That 

Are near Pending Tar Sands Lease Areas under Alternative 1 
FIGURE 6.2.1-6 Scenic Resource Areas within the 5- and 15-mi Zones around the Lands Available for ApplicatioAlternative 1 for the Asphalt Ridge, Pariette, and Raven Ridge STSAs 
FIGURE 6.2.1-7 Scenic Resource Areas within the 5- and 15-mi Zones around the Lands Available for ApplicatioAlternative 1 for the Argyle Canyon, Hill Creek, P.R. Spring, and Sunnyside STSAs 
FIGURE 6.2.1-8 Scenic Resource Areas within the 5- and 15-mi Zones around the Lands Available for ApplicatioAlternative 1 for the San Rafael STSA 
FIGURE 6.2.1-9 Scenic Resource Areas within the 5- and 15-mi Zones around the Lands Available for ApplicatioAlternative 1 for the Tar Sand Triangle and White Canyon STSAs 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-364 

angle and create low levels of visual contrast such that impacts would be expected to be minor to 

negligible. Table 6.2.1-11 presents the scenic resource areas that fall within these zones. 

 Visual resources could be affected at and near the lease areas where commercial tar sands 

projects would be developed and operated, and at areas where supporting infrastructure (such as 

utility and pipeline ROWs) would be located. Visual resources could be affected by ROW 

clearing, project construction, and operation (see Section 5.9.1). Potential impacts would be 

associated with construction equipment and activity, cleared project areas, and the type and 

visibility of individual project components, such as tar sands processing facilities, utility ROWs, 

and surface mines. The nature, magnitude, and extent of project-related impacts would depend 

on the type, location, and design of the individual project components. 

6.2.1.9 Cultural Resources 

 Under Alternative 1, a total of 430,686 acres of public land are available for commercial 

tar sands leasing. The lands available contain cultural resources (O’Rourke et al. 2012). More 

than 15% of public lands available for application for leasing in the STSAs under Alternative 1 

have been surveyed for cultural resources (more than 66,130 acres in addition to 1,051 linear 

mi). 23 In those areas that have been surveyed, 860 sites have been identified. Additional cultural 

resources are likely in unsurveyed portions of the study area. On the basis of a sensitivity 

analysis conducted for the Class I Cultural Resources Overview (O’Rourke et al. 2012), nearly 

221,726 acres within areas available for application for leasing in Alternative 1 have been 

identified as having a medium or high sensitivity for containing cultural resources.24 However, 

tar sands development could also result in scientifically beneficial discoveries that may not have 

otherwise been made. 

 Impacts on cultural resources within these areas would be considered if leasing and future 

commercial development occur. Leasing itself has the potential to impact cultural resources to 

the extent that the terms of the lease limit an agency’s ability to avoid, minimize, or mitigate 

adverse effects of proposed development on cultural properties. Impacts from future 

development could include the destruction of individual resources present within development 

areas, degradation and/or destruction of near-surface resources in or near the development area, 

increased potential of loss of resources from looting or vandalism of resources as a result of 

increased human presence and activity in the sensitive areas, and visual degradation of the 

cultural setting (see Section 6.2.1.8). Any future leasing and development would be subject to 

compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA as well as all other pertinent laws, regulations, and 

policies. Compliance with these laws would result in measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate 

 

23 This percentage was calculated by using block acre surveys only and does not include approximately 

691 linear mi of survey. 

24 Portions of the Argyle Canyon, Asphalt Ridge, Circle Cliffs, Raven Ridge, San Rafael, Sunnyside, Tar Sand 

Triangle, and White Canyon STSAs have not been surveyed sufficiently to derive sensitivity information. Out of 

430,686 acres available under Alternative 1, sensitivity information is available for 401,724 acres (93%). 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-365 

TABLE 6.2.1-11 Visually Sensitive Areas That Could Be Affected by Commercial Tar Sands 

Projects Developed in Potential Lease Areas under Alternative 1 

Scenic Resources within 5 mi 

of Alternative 1 Lease Areas 

Scenic Resources between 5 and 15 mi 

of Alternative 1 Lease Areas 

 

Bull Canyon, Crack Canyon, Dark Canyon ISA Complex, 

Desolation Canyon, Devils Canyon, Dirty Devil, Fiddler 

Butte, Flume Canyon, French Spring-Happy Canyon, 

Horseshoe Canyon (South), Jack Canyon, Link Flats ISA, 

Mexican Mountain, Muddy Creek, San Rafael Reef, Sids 

Cabin 202, Sids Mountain, Spruce Canyon, and Winter Ridge 

WSAs. 

Book Cliffs Mountain Browse ISA, Bull Canyon, Butler 

Wash, Cheese Box Canyon, Coal Canyon, Crack Canyon, 

Daniels Canyon, Dark Canyon ISA Complex, Desolation 

Canyon, Devils Canyon, Dirty Devil, Fiddler Butte, Floy 

Canyon, Flume Canyon, French Spring-Happy Canyon, 

Horseshoe Canyon (South), Jack Canyon, Link Flats ISA, 

Little Rockies, Mancos Mesa, Mexican Mountain, 

Mt. Hillers, Muddy Creek, San Rafael Reef, Sids Cabin 202, 

Sids Mountain, Spruce Canyon, Turtle Canyon, and Winter 

Ridge WSAs. 

 

Copper Globe, Cottonwood-Diamond Watershed, I-70 

Scenic, Lears Canyon, Lucky Strike, Muddy Creek, Muddy 

Creek-Tomsich Butte, Nine Mile, Pariette, Raven Ridge 

Addition, Red Mountain-Dry Fork, Rock Art, San Rafael 

Canyon, San Rafael Reef, Shepards End, Swaseys Cabin, 

Temple Mountain, Tidwell Draw, and Wild Horse Canyon 

ACECs. 

Big Flat Tops, Big Hole, Copper Globe, Cottonwood 

Canyon, Cottonwood-Diamond Watershed, Dry Lake, Dry 

Wash, Hidden Splendor, Hunt Cabin, I-70 Scenic, Kings 

Crown, Lears Canyon, Little Susan, Lower Green River 

Corridor, Lucky Strike, Molen Seep, Muddy Creek, Muddy 

Creek-Tomsich Butte, Nine Mile, North Salt Wash, Pariette, 

Raven Ridge Addition, Red Mountain-Dry Fork, Rock Art, 

San Rafael Canyon, San Rafael Reef, Sand Cove, Segers 

Hole, Shepards End, Short Creek, Smith Cabin, Swaseys 

Cabin, Temple Mountain, Tidwell Draw, White River 

Riparian, Wild Horse Canyon, and Wilsonville ACECs. 

 

Blue Mountain, Dark Canyon, Nine Mile, Red Mountain-Dry 

Fork, and White Canyon SRMAs. 

Beef Basin, Blue Mountain, Dark Canyon, Labyrinth 

Rims/Gemini Bridges, Nine Mile, Pelican Lake, Red 

Mountain-Dry Fork, White Canyon, and White River 

SRMAs. 

 

Dinosaur Diamond Prehistoric and Flaming Gorge Uintas 

National Scenic Highways. 

Dinosaur Diamond Prehistoric, Energy Loop, and Flaming 

Gorge Uintas National Scenic Highways. 

 

Indian Canyon Scenic Byway and Bicentennial Highway 

Utah State Scenic Byways. 

Indian Canyon Scenic Byway and Bicentennial Highway 

Utah State Scenic Byways. 

 

Nine Mile Canyon BLM Backcountry Byway. Bull Creek Pass and Nine Mile Canyon BLM Backcountry 

Byways. 

 

Eccles Canyon National Forest Scenic Byway. 

 

Glen Canyon National Recreation Area. Canyonlands National Park, Dark Canyon Wilderness, Glen 

Canyon National Recreation Area, Ouray National Wildlife 

Refuge, Quarry Visitor Center National Historic Landmark, 

Dinosaur National Monument, and Natural Bridges National 

Monument. 

 

Old Spanish Trail National Historic Trail. 

 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-366 

impacts, or to denial of the lease or project. The cultural resources in the Circle Cliffs STSA 

would not be impacted by tar sands leasing and development because no leasing and 

development would occur in this STSA. The cultural resources in the Argyle Canyon, Hill 

Creek, Pariette, Raven Ridge, San Rafael, Tar Sand Triangle, and White Canyon STSAs are less 

likely to be impacted by tar sands leasing and development than those resources present in the 

Asphalt Ridge, P.R. Spring, and Sunnyside STSAs. 

6.2.1.10 Indian Tribal Concerns 

Under Alternative 1, no BLM land use plans would be altered. Tribes with traditional ties 

to the BLM planning areas in which the STSAs lie were contacted and provided the opportunity 

to consult during the development of these plans. Many Native American concerns have been 

taken into account in the plans and procedures laid out in these plans. These concerns include 

ensuring that water sources are protected; ensuring cultural resource surveys are undertaken; 

ensuring affected tribes are consulted; ensuring access to sacred sites, landscapes, and traditional 

resource collecting places; ensuring sacred sites are protected; enforcing OHV regulations; and 

protecting the visual and auditory context of sacred sites such as mountains (e.g., the Henry 

Mountains and Abajo Mountains sacred to the Navajo), rivers (e.g., the Colorado, Green, and 

Price Rivers sacred to the Ute and the Navajo), and rock art panels (sacred to many tribes, 

including the Hopi). 

 The allotment process is not expected to adversely affect resources. Developing tar sands 

resources, however, has that potential to the extent that it involves ground-disturbing activities; 

introduces industrial facilities that may be incompatible with sacred sites; increases human 

activity in or near sacred spots; and increases access to previously remote areas, thus raising the 

chances of vandalism. BLM land management plans include provisions for consulting with the 

tribes and protecting identified resources important to Native Americans. For example, the Ute 

Indian Tribe filed a protest over provisions for the development of subsurface resources on split 

estate lands in the Hill Creek Extension of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation. Government-togovernment consultation resulted in the identification of stipulations for Hill Creek Extension 

actions that require coordination with the surface owner (BLM 2008c). Under this alternative, 

430,686 acres in the STSAs would be available for application for commercial lease, the most of 

any tar sands alternative. Both surface mining and in situ technologies will be considered, all of 

which require extensive surface disturbance, although surface mining would have the greatest 

potential for adversely affecting resources important to Native Americans. Lands in the STSAs 

excluded from commercial leasing—Wilderness Areas, WSAs and other areas that are part of the 

NLC, existing ACECs, historic trails, and segments of rivers eligible for WSR status—afford 

some protection to traditional and sacred sites important to Native Americans because of their 

various restrictions on surface use and development. Development of the parcels would require 

site-specific NEPA reviews that would take into account resources of concern to Native 

Americans identified through required consultation and surveys. 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-367 

6.2.1.11 Socioeconomics 

 Under Alternative 1, 430,686 acres of land in Utah is available for application for 

commercial tar sands development. With the possible exception of an impact on property values, 

there is no socioeconomic impact from this land allocation action. The socioeconomic impacts 

described in Section 5.11 and summarized in this section are for hypothetical individual 

commercial tar sands projects. These types of impacts represent those that could occur as a result 

of development on lands identified as available for commercial leasing under Alternative 1. The 

specific socioeconomic impacts would depend on the technologies employed, the project size or 

production level, and development time lines and mitigation measures. 

• Tar sands development projects and their associated ancillary facilities could 

affect property values in ROI communities located nearby. Furthermore, it is 

possible that there will be property value impacts simply from designating 

land as available for application for leasing; these impacts could result in 

either decreased or increased property values (see Section 4.12.1.6). Property 

values could decline in some locations as a result of the deterioration in 

aesthetic quality, increases in noise, real or perceived health effects, 

congestion, or social disruption. In other locations, property values could 

increase as a result of access to employment opportunities associated with tar 

sands development. 

• Under Alternative 1, a single tar sands facility would produce 1,831 jobs in 

the ROI (1,187 direct jobs at tar sands facilities and 644 indirect jobs in the 

remainder of the local economy) during the peak construction year. During 

commercial production, 747 employees (482 direct and 265 indirect) would be 

required in the ROI. 

• Construction of housing for tar sands workers and families would create 

551 jobs (432 direct and 119 indirect in the remainder of the local economy) 

in the ROI. 

• Population in-migration associated with tar sands construction would 

represent an increase of 0.7% over the projected ROI population baseline. 

• In-migrating population associated with tar sands facilities would absorb 0.7% 

of the projected vacant housing stock in the ROI. 

• Provision of additional local public services for in-migrant workers would 

require an increase in 1.0% in local expenditures during the peak construction 

year and 0.7% during operations. 

• The number of new residents from outside the producing regions and the pace 

of population growth associated with the commercial development of tar 

sands resources, including large-scale production facilities and housing 

developments, could lead to substantial demographic and social change in 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-368 

small rural communities. These communities could be required to adapt to a 

different quality of life, with a transition away from a more traditional 

lifestyle in small, isolated, close-knit, homogenous communities with a strong 

orientation toward personal and family relationships, toward a more urban 

lifestyle with increasing cultural and ethnic diversity and increasing 

dependence on formal social relationships within the community. 

• Substantial changes in access to water by agriculture could have large impacts 

on the economy of each ROI, which would depend on the amount of 

agricultural production lost, the extent of local employment in agriculture, the 

reliance of other industries in each ROI on agricultural production, the extent 

of local procurement of equipment and supplies by agriculture, and the local 

spending of wage and salaries by farmers, ranchers, and farmworkers. Loss of 

property tax revenues on agricultural land could also impact local government 

expenditures and consequently impact the provision of public services in local 

communities in each ROI. Changes in agricultural activity would likely 

change the character of community life in each ROI, with a movement away 

from activities that historically represent small rural communities. 

• The impact of tar sands development on recreational visitation, assuming a 

10% reduction in recreation employment in the ROI, would be the loss of 

388 jobs in the ROI, and assuming a 20% reduction, the loss of 776 jobs. 

 Under Alternative 1, 430,686 acres of public land would remain available for commercial 

tar sands leasing. It is not anticipated that this allocation decision would result in impacts on 

transportation systems and infrastructure. The types of impacts on transportation that may occur 

as a result of potential tar sands development on lands identified as available for commercial 

leasing are described in Section 5.12.1.6. Because of the many variables regarding project 

location, location of employer-provided housing, and the variability of the level of employment 

depending upon the phase of individual projects, this general assessment of potential 

transportation impacts utilizes the maximum number of direct employees employed in support of 

only tar sands projects as the basis for this discussion. Direct and indirect jobs associated with 

the construction of housing, pipelines, and power lines serving the tar sands facilities are not 

included in this number because of additional uncertainties over location and timing. The 

maximum number of direct employees would occur during the construction period for projects 

and therefore overstates potential traffic volume effects during the operations phase for the 

projects. In addition, because the potential locations of projects are unknown, identifying specific 

impacts is not possible at this time. Specific transportation impacts would be assessed once 

site-specific proposals are evaluated. 

 The maximum number of direct employees for a commercial tar sands facility is 

estimated to be 1,187 during the construction phase and 482 during the operations phase. 

Assuming a range of 2 to10 average passengers per vehicle, the estimated number of employees 

could add 119 to 593 daily vehicle trips during construction and 48 to 241 additional daily 

vehicle trips during operations. Depending on the distribution of this traffic volume, impacts on 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-369 

traffic flow may occur. Structural changes to road systems may be required to provide additional 

capacity for traffic and to deal with heavier loads of associated construction equipment. 

 The above maximum vehicle numbers do not include traffic generated by indirect jobs 

associated with tar sands development. Uncertainties about where indirect jobs may be located 

further complicate making assumptions about their specific impact; however; these employees 

will also have an impact on traffic loads throughout the immediate region. 

6.2.1.12 Environmental Justice 

 The environmental justice impacts described in Section 5.13 and summarized in this 

section for individual commercial tar sands projects represent the types of impacts that could 

occur as a result of development on lands identified as available for commercial leasing under 

Alternative 1. Data in Tables 3.12-2 show the minority and low-income composition of total 

population located in the designated tar sands development areas and associated 50-mi buffers in 

the three states (based on 2010 Census data and CEQ Guidelines). 

 Since tar sands development projects and associated facilities would lead to rapid 

population growth in many of the communities in each ROI, it is possible that social disruption 

would occur, leading to the undermining of local community social structures with contrasting 

beliefs and value systems among the local population and in-migrants and, consequently, to a 

range of changes in social and community life, including increases in crime, alcoholism, drug 

use, and so forth. Impacts on property values of property owned by minority and low-income 

individuals would depend on the range of alternate uses of specific land parcels, current property 

values, and the perceived value of costs (traffic congestion, noise and dust pollution, and visual, 

air quality, and EMF effects) and benefits (infrastructure upgrades, employment opportunities, 

and local tax revenues) associated with proximity to tar sands-related facilities. 

 Tar sands development would produce surface disturbance, fugitive dust, vehicle 

emissions, and activity that could generate visual impacts. Emissions associated with 

construction activities would consist primarily of particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10), criteria 

pollutants, VOCs, CO2, and certain HAPs released from heavy construction equipment and 

vehicle exhaust. Because of the limited surface water and groundwater, the amount of water 

needed in Utah for commercial tar sands projects and associated population growth would mean 

that additional water resources would be needed. Tar sands facilities might impact certain 

animals or vegetation types that may be of cultural or religious significance to certain population 

groups or that form the basis for subsistence agriculture. Similarly, land used for these facilities 

that has additional economic uses might affect access to resources by low-income and minority 

population groups. 

 Given the location of environmental justice populations in Utah, construction and 

operation of tar sands facilities and employer-provided housing required for the operation of tar 

sands development projects could produce impacts that would be experienced disproportionately 

by minority and low-income populations. Of particular importance would be social disruption 

impacts of large increases in population in small rural communities, the undermining of local 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-370 

community social structures, and the resulting deterioration in quality of life. The impacts of 

facility operations on air and water quality and on the demand for water in the region could also 

be important. Land use and visual impacts could be significant depending on the locations of 

land parcels for tar sands projects and the associated housing facilities, their importance for 

subsistence, their cultural and religious significance, and alternate economic uses. Depending on 

the locations of low-income and minority populations, impacts could also occur with the 

development of transmission lines associated with power development and the supply of power 

to tar sands facilities in each state. 

6.2.1.13 Hazardous Materials and Waste Management 

 Under Alternative 1, 430,686 acres of land would remain available for application for 

leasing for commercial tar sands development. It is not anticipated that this allocation decision 

would result in any hazardous material or waste management concerns. Impacts related to 

hazardous materials and wastes could occur during the construction and operation of commercial 

tar sands projects within areas identified in Alternative 1 as available for application for 

commercial leasing. Such impacts would generally be independent of location and would be 

unique to the technology combinations used for tar sands development. Hazardous materials and 

wastes would also be associated with ancillary support activities that would be required for 

development of any tar sands facility regardless of the technology used. These include the 

impacts from development of energy transmission or pipeline ROWs and employer-provided 

housing. 

 Hazardous materials impacts associated with project construction would be minimal and 

limited to the hazardous materials typically utilized in construction, such as fuels, lubricating 

oils, hydraulic fluids, glycol-based coolants, and solvents, adhesives, and corrosion-control 

coatings. Construction-related wastes could include landscape wastes from clearing and grading 

of the construction sites, and other wastes typically associated with construction, none of which 

is expected to be hazardous (Section 5.13.1). 

 During project operations, hazardous materials could be utilized and a variety of wastes 

(some hazardous) would be generated. Hazardous materials used include fuels, solvents, 

corrosion-control coatings, flammable fuel gases, and herbicides (for vegetation clearing and 

management at facilities or along ROWs). The types and amounts of hazardous waste generated 

during operations would depend on the specific design of the commercial tar sands project 

(surface mining, various surface retorting technologies, and in situ processes). Waste materials 

produced during operations could include waste engine fuels and lubricants, flammable gases, 

volatile and flammable organic liquids, and heavier-molecular-weight organic compounds 

(Section 5.13.1). 

 Because the use of hazardous materials and the generation of wastes are directly related 

to the specific design of a commercial tar sands project, it is not possible to quantify projectrelated impacts of these materials. Under Alternative 1, individual facilities could be located 

anywhere within the areas identified as available for leasing, pending project review and 

authorization. Accidental releases of the hazardous materials or wastes could affect natural 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-371 

resources (such as water quality or wildlife) and human health and safety (see Sections 5.14 and 

6.2.1.14) at locations where the individual projects are sited within the Alternative 1 potential 

lease areas. 

6.2.1.14 Health and Safety 

 Under Alternative 1, 430,686 acres of land would remain available for application for 

leasing for commercial tar sands development. It is not anticipated that this land allocation 

decision would result in any direct health and safety concerns. However, a number of health and 

safety concerns would be associated with the commercial development of tar sands projects 

within the areas available for application for commercial leasing in Alternative 1. The level of 

health and safety impacts would be mainly dependent on the extent of tar sands development, the 

extent of health and safety precautions imposed by the operators, and the design of each project 

(as related to the level of air and water emissions associated with a facility). 

 Potential health and safety impacts from the construction and operation of commercial 

tar sands projects would be associated with the following activities: (1) constructing project 

facilities and associated infrastructure; (2) surface mining (if processing is not in situ) the tar 

sands; (3) obtaining and upgrading the syncrude, either through surface retorting or in situ 

processing; (4) transporting construction and raw materials to the upgrading facility and 

transporting product from the facility; and (5) exposing the general public to water and air 

contamination associated with tar sands development. Hazards from tar sands development 

(summarized in Table 5.14-1) could include physical injury from construction, tar sands 

processing, and vehicle transportation accidents, and exposure to fugitive dust and hazardous 

materials such as retort emissions and industrial chemicals (Section 5.14). Health and safety 

impacts would be largely restricted to the immediate workforce of each facility. Accidents may 

also affect members of the general public who could be present in the immediate vicinity of an 

accident (e.g., project-related truck accident on a public road or recreational users in areas 

adjacent to the project lease area). 

 Workers would be exposed to different hazards depending on the type of jobs they 

perform. Workers at all types of tar sands development facilities could be exposed to high noise 

levels, which could result in hearing loss. The health and safety of miners could be impacted by 

injuries or deaths due to accidents (e.g., highwall bank failures or cave-ins, uncontrolled 

explosions, and accidents involving heavy machinery) or heat exposures. Workers operating 

surface retorts also could be injured or die due to accidental explosions, heat stress, or accidents 

involving heavy machinery. Physical hazards from well drilling, use of explosives, and operation 

of heavy equipment would be present for in situ workers. 

 Serious and often fatal lung disease in miners has been associated with inhalation of 

particulates and volatile compounds containing carcinogenic PAHs; such exposures could be 

limited by adherence to applicable occupational health and safety standards. Lung disease caused 

by inhalation of emissions from the retorting process is also of concern for retort operators, 

although these exposures are generally lower than those associated with mining. For workers at 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-372 

facilities using in situ recovery techniques, hazards associated with inhalation of emissions 

would also be expected to be lower than those associated with mining. 

 Estimates of expected injuries and fatalities can be made on the basis of the number of 

employees and the type of work. On the basis of the numbers of employees projected to be 

needed for construction and operation of tar sands facilities, there statistically would be less 

than 1 death and about 100 injuries per year expected per facility during construction activities, 

and less than 1 death and about 30 injuries per year expected per facility during operations 

(NSC 2006). A comprehensive facility health and safety plan and worker safety training could be 

required as part of the plan of development for every proposed commercial tar sands project. 

 Health and safety concerns are largely independent of the locations of tar sands 

development facilities. However, the health and safety impacts on the general public from 

emissions from these facilities would depend both on the specific characteristics and level of 

emissions and on the distance of the emissions source from population centers. The level of air 

and water emissions would be regulated under required permits. Potential impacts on the general 

public from emissions would be assessed in future site-specific NEPA and permitting 

documentation. 

6.2.2 Impacts of Alternative 2, Proposed Plan Amendment 

 Under Alternative 2, the BLM would amend the following four BLM Utah land use 

plans: Monticello RMP, Price RMP, Richfield RMP, and Vernal RMP. The BLM would make 

129,567 acres (approximately 20% of the public lands in the STSAs) available for application for 

leasing for commercial development of tar sands within eight designated STSAs: Hill Creek, 

Pariette, P.R. Spring, Raven Ridge, San Rafael, Sunnyside, Tar Sand Triangle, and White 

Canyon STSAs (see Figure 2.4.3-2 and Table 2.4.3-1). As with Alternative 1, leasing would not 

be allowed in the Circle Cliffs STSA, but in addition, the Argyle Canyon and Asphalt Ridge 

STSAs would be totally unavailable under Alternative 2 and the acreage available in the Pariette, 

Tar Sand Triangle, and White Canyon STSAs could be so small as to make them practically 

unavailable for development. The public lands that would be available under Alternative 2 

comprise approximately 80,621 acres of BLM-administered lands and 48,945 acres of split estate 

lands. (See Sections 2.4.3 and 2.4.3.1 for a complete description of Alternative 2.) Public lands 

within the study area not identified as available for application for leasing under Alternative 2 

are thereby excluded from application for leasing. 

 Lands other than those 129,567 acres to be designated as available for application for 

leasing for commercial development of tar sands under Alternative 2 that are currently open 

would be closed to such leasing and development; that is, the difference between the 

430,686 acres currently open and 129,567 acres. As described below, the potential impacts on 

lands currently available for application for leasing for commercial development but considered 

in Alternative 2 for closure to such leasing and development would not be adverse, as no leasing 

or development would take place, and that unless otherwise discussed, any benefit would accrue 

in proportion to the number of acres closed. 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-373 

 In addition to public lands excluded under Alternative 1, under Alternative 2 the BLM 

would exclude additional lands containing sensitive resources. By making these additional 

exclusions, the BLM is placing a priority on protecting known sensitive resources within each 

field office in this alternative. By excluding these lands from future commercial leasing and 

development, direct impacts on resources on these lands would be avoided. The resources 

present in these excluded areas still could incur indirect impacts as a result of commercial tar 

sands development on adjacent lands or within the region. Under Alternative 2, approximately 

339,640 acres of land now available for tar sands commercial leasing and development would be 

made unavailable. 

 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 or not 

available for application for commercial leasing in the three-state study area, but there may be 

impacts on land values. The development of commercial tar sands projects that could occur on 

lands made available for application for commercial leasing by these land use plan amendments, 

however, would have impacts on these resources. The following sections describe the impacts of 

Alternative 2 on the environment and the socioeconomic setting. The sections also describe the 

potential impact of subsequent commercial development that might occur on the lands identified 

as available for leasing. 

6.2.2.1 Land Use 

 Alternative 2 would amend the four land use plans listed above (Monticello, Price, 

Richfield, and Vernal) and would identify only 129,567 acres of public land in Utah as available 

for application for leasing for commercial development of tar sands. The remaining lands 

currently open to such application would be identified as not available for this use. The public 

lands that would be available under Alternative 2 are composed of 80,622 acres of BLMadministered lands and 48,945 acres of split estate lands. Table 6.2.1-1 lists the acreages per 

STSA. 

 Under Alternative 2, some of the potential impacts on land use could be the same as those 

under Alternative 1 (e.g., impacts on mineral development, grazing, and recreational use), 

although Alternative 2 does not make available nearly as many acres as Alternative 1 and 

removes many lands with known sensitive resources from consideration for commercial leasing. 

 The nature of the impacts of Alternative 2 on land uses would be essentially the same as 

those listed for Alternative 1 in Section 6.2.1.1, with the following exceptions: 

• The 144,926 acres of LWC are excluded from application for leasing and 

would not be directly affected by tar sands development. 

• Core or priority sage-grouse habitat and current and recommended ACECs 

(includes an additional 10,419 acres of ACECs) would be removed from 

application for commercial tar sands leasing. 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-374 

• This alternative specifically removes the Adobe Town “Very Rare and 

Uncommon Area” from consideration for leasing of tar sands resources, but 

since there are no tar sands resources present within this area (tar sands are 

located in Utah, not in Wyoming, where Adobe Town is located), this does 

not represent a difference between Alternative 2 and Alternative 1 and is not 

considered further. 

• Several wild horse and burro HMAs overlap lands that would be available for 

application for tar sands leasing, including the Hill Creek HMA, which 

overlaps with the Hill Creek STSA (9,749 acres); the Muddy Creek and 

Sinbad HMAs, which overlap with the San Rafael STSA (129 and 

7,420 acres, respectively); and the Range Creek HMA, which overlaps with 

the Sunnyside STSA (360 acres) (Figure 6.2.2-1). Any tar sands development 

that occurs in HMAs would need to protect wild horses and burros under the 

Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act of 1971. 

6.2.2.2 Soil and Geologic Resources 

 Under Alternative 2, land use plans in Utah would be amended to designate 

129,567 acres of public land as available for commercial tar sands leasing. The amendment of 

land use plans to identify these areas would not have any direct impacts on soil and geologic 

resources in these lands. Development of commercial tar sands projects could, however, affect 

soils and geologic resources in these lands. 

 Construction-related activities could directly disturb surface and subsurface soils during 

clearing and grading activities and construction of project facilities and infrastructure. This 

disturbance could include soil disturbance, removal, and compaction, and disturbed areas would 

be more susceptible to the effects of precipitation and wind-driven erosion (see Section 5.3.1). 

Surface and subsurface mining activities during project operations would directly disturb 

geologic resources. Erosion of exposed soils could lead to increased sedimentation of nearby 

water bodies and to the generation of fugitive dust. Soils in project areas would remain 

susceptible to erosion until completion of construction, mining, and tar sands processing 

activities, and site stabilization and reclamation (e.g., revegetation of pipeline ROWs and surface 

mine reclamation). Impacts on soil and geologic resources would be limited to the specific 

project location as well as to areas where associated off-lease infrastructure (e.g., access roads 

and utility ROWs) would be located. 

 Under Alternative 2, project-related impacts could occur wherever individual projects are 

located within the 129,567 acres identified for application for leasing under this alternative. For 

any project, the erosion potential of the soils would be a direct function of the lease and project 

location and of the soil characteristics, vegetative cover, and topography (i.e., slope) at that 

location. Development in areas that have erosive soils and steep slopes (e.g., in excess of 25%) 

could lead to serious erosion problems at those locations. 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-375 

FIGURE 6.2.2-1 Lands Available for Application for Tar Sands Leasing under Alternative 2 in 

Relation to Wild Horse and Burro Herd Management Areas 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-376 

6.2.2.3 Paleontological Resources 

 Under Alternative 2, land use plans in Utah would be amended to designate 

129,567 acres for commercial tar sands leasing, excluding special areas such as all ACECs 

(Section 2.4.3.1). The designation of leasing areas, as well as the amendment of land use plans to 

incorporate these areas, would not affect paleontological resources because these actions do not 

authorize or approve any ground-disturbing activities. However, paleontological resources within 

these areas could be adversely affected if leasing and subsequent commercial development 

occur. Of the acreage identified as available for application for leasing under Alternative 2, a 

total of 116,245 acres (approximately 90% of the 129,567 acres that would be available under 

Alternative 2) has been identified as overlying geologic formations having the potential to 

contain important paleontological resources (Murphey and Daitch 2007). 

 Impacts from tar sands development 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 

areas, 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. These impacts and the 

application of mitigation measures to reduce or eliminate them are discussed in Section 5.4. 

6.2.2.4 Water Resources 

 The acreage available for application for leasing under Alternative 2 specifically excludes 

lands identified in BLM land use plans as sensitive for numerous resources (see Table 2.2.3-1). 

Excluding these lands from application for leasing would provide complete protection from 

direct impacts on water resources found on these lands. To the extent that development could 

occur adjacent to these excluded lands, there is the potential for indirect adverse impacts on 

water resources on the excluded lands, as described in Section 5.5. In those areas that are 

available for application for leasing under Alternative 2, the potential impacts would be the same 

as those described for Alternative 1 in Section 6.2.1.4, with the exception that under 

Alternative 2, approximately 128 mi (47%) of perennial streams in the STSAs could be impacted 

by future commercial development (in comparison with 185 mi under Alternative 1). 

 The assessment of impacts on water resources under Alternative 2 has the same 

limitations identified under Alternative 1. Without site-specific information on the location and 

type of technology to be employed, it is not possible to assess the overall impacts of this 

alternative. 

6.2.2.5 Air Quality 

 Under Alternative 2, four land use plans would be amended to designate 129,567 acres of 

public land available for application for leasing for commercial development of tar sands 

(Section 2.4.3.1) and to exclude other acres, as described above. Air resources would not be 

affected by this action. Air resources in and around these areas could, however, be affected by 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-377 

future commercial tar sands development. Under Alternative 2, local, short-term, air quality 

impacts may be incurred as a result of (1) PM releases (fugitive dust and diesel exhaust) during 

construction activities such as site clearing and grading in preparation for facility construction 

and (2) exhaust emissions (NOx, CO, PM, VOC, and SO2) from construction equipment and 

vehicles (see Section 5.6). These types of impacts would be of short duration and largely limited 

to specific project locations and immediately adjacent areas, as well as to other areas where 

project-related electric transmission lines, oil pipelines, transportation ROWs, and other 

infrastructure would be located and developed. 

 Similar but longer term impacts on local air quality could occur during normal project 

operations such as mining and processing of the tar sands. Processing activities could also result 

in regional impacts on air quality and AQRVs, such as visibility and acid deposition, which 

could extend beyond the lease areas identified under Alternative 2. These regional impacts would 

be associated with operational releases of NOx, CO, PM, and other pollutants (VOCs and SO2) 

during tar sands processing (Section 5.6). In addition, ozone precursors of NOx and VOC from 

tar sands development could exacerbate wintertime high-ozone occurrences already prevalent in 

the study area, especially in Uintah County. Operational releases of HAPs (such as benzene, 

toluene, and formaldehyde) as well as diesel PM could also affect workers and nearby 

residences; these impacts, however, would be localized to the immediate project location. 

 During all phases of tar sands development, GHG emissions of primarily CO2 and lesser 

amounts of CH4 and N2O from combustions sources could contribute to climate change to some 

extent. 

6.2.2.6 Noise 

 Under Alternative 2, four land use plans would be amended to designate 129,567 acres of 

public land available for application for leasing for commercial development of tar sands 

(Section 2.4.3.1) and to exclude other acres, as described above. Ambient noise levels in 

potential lease areas would not be affected by this action. Ambient noise levels, however, could 

be affected by subsequent commercial development of tar sands. Under Alternative 2, local, 

short-term changes in ambient noise levels could occur during the construction, operation, and 

reclamation of tar sands projects (see Section 5.7.1). Project-related increases in noise levels 

could disturb or displace wildlife and recreational users in nearby areas. Impacts on wildlife and 

recreational users are discussed in Sections 5.8.1.3 and 5.2.1.4, respectively. 

 Increased noise levels could result from the operation of construction equipment (graders, 

excavators, and haul trucks) and from blasting activities. Increases in noise levels during 

operations would be associated with mining and tar sands processing activities and would be 

more long-term than construction-related noise. These types of impacts would be largely limited 

to specific project locations and the immediate surrounding area. Similar short-term and longterm impacts could also occur in other areas where electric transmission lines, oil pipelines, 

transportation ROWs, and other infrastructure would be located, developed, and operated. For 

example, ambient noise levels could also be increased in the immediate vicinity of any pipeline 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-378 

pump station and could also be affected by project-related vehicular traffic at the project site and 

related locations such as access roads to the site. 

 Construction-related noise levels could exceed EPA guidelines. Similarly, in the absence 

of mitigation, operational noise associated with mining and retort activities could exceed EPA 

guidelines at some project locations at nearby sensitive receptors. Noise generated as a result of 

project-related vehicular traffic is not expected to exceed EPA guideline levels except for short 

durations and very close to road or high traffic areas. 

 In the absence of lease- and project-specific information, it is not possible at the level of 

this PEIS to identify the duration and magnitude of any project-related changes in noise levels. 

Changes to ambient noise levels from project development could occur wherever a project is 

located within the 91,792 acres identified for application for leasing under Alternative 2. 

6.2.2.7 Ecological Resources 

 Under Alternative 2, a total of 129,567 acres of public land would be made available 

within Utah for application for commercial tar sands leasing. The ecological resources in these 

areas (Section 3.7) would not be affected by the amendment of land use plans to identify these 

areas. Ecological resources in and around these areas, however, could be affected by future 

commercial development of tar sands in these areas. The following sections describe the 

potential impacts on ecological resources that may result from commercial tar sands 

development within the Alternative 2 lease areas. 

 6.2.2.7.1 Aquatic Resources. Under Alternative 2, a total of 129,567 acres of land in 

Utah would be made available for application for leasing for commercial tar sands development. 

There are no impacts on aquatic habitats associated with this land use designation. Impacts could 

result, however, from post-lease construction and operation as described in Section 5.8.1.1. 

These impacts would be considered in project-specific NEPA analyses that would be conducted 

at the commercial lease and development phases of projects. 

 Potential impacts on aquatic resources from tar sands development could result primarily 

from increased turbidity and sedimentation, changes to water table levels, degradation of surface 

water quality (e.g., alteration of water temperature, salinity, and nutrient levels), the release of 

toxic substances to surface water, and increased public access to aquatic habitats as described in 

Section 5.8.1.1. As described in Section 5.8.1.1, there is a potential for development and 

production activities in upland areas to affect surface water and groundwater beyond the area 

where surface disturbance or water withdrawals occur. Consequently, the analysis here considers 

the potential for impacts in waterways up to 2 mi beyond the boundary of the lands that would be 

allocated for potential leasing under this alternative. However, as project development activities 

occur farther from waterways, the potential for negative effects on aquatic resources is reduced. 

For the analysis of potential impacts under each of the alternatives considered in this PEIS, it 

was assumed that the potential for negative impacts on aquatic resources increases as the area 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-379 

potentially affected (i.e., the area that would be considered 

for leasing) increases and as the number and extent of 

waterways within a 2-mi zone surrounding those areas 

increases. 

 Under Alternative 2, there are 8 perennial streams, 

and about 9 mi of perennial stream habitat within the 

STSAs of Utah that are directly overlain by areas that would 

be potentially available for tar sands development 

(Table 6.2.2-1). When an additional 2-mi zone surrounding 

these areas is considered, there are 13 perennial streams and 

about 128 mi of perennial stream habitat that could be 

affected by future development activities (Table 6.2.1-5). 

The development of commercial tar sands projects in the 

areas identified under Alternative 2 could impact aquatic 

biota and their habitats during project construction and 

operations, thereby resulting in short- and/or long-term 

changes (disturbance or loss) in the abundance and 

distribution of affected biota and their habitats. As described in Section 5.1.1.1, impacts from 

water quality degradation and water depletions could affect resources in areas not only within or 

immediately adjacent to leased areas but also farther downstream in affected watersheds. The 

nature and magnitude of impacts, as well as the specific resources affected, would depend on the 

location of the areas where project construction and facilities occur, the aquatic resources present 

in those areas, and the mitigation measures implemented. 

 The types of aquatic habitats and organisms that could be impacted by future 

development in the vicinity of the STSAs are described in Section 3.7.1.2, and some of these 

aquatic habitats are known to, or are likely to, contain federally listed endangered fish, statelisted or BLM-designated sensitive species (Section 3.7.4), and other native fish and invertebrate 

species that could be negatively affected by development. Specific impacts would depend greatly 

upon the locations and methods of extraction used by future projects. Project-specific NEPA 

analyses would be conducted prior to any future leasing decisions to evaluate potential impacts 

in greater detail. 

 6.2.2.7.2 Plant Communities and Habitats. Under Alternative 2,129,567 acres of land 

in Utah would be made available for application for commercial leasing of tar sands resources. 

There would be no impacts on plant communities and habitats associated with identifying lands 

as available for application for leasing. Impacts could result, however, from post-lease 

construction and operation as described in Section 5.8.1.2. These impacts would be considered in 

greater detail in project-specific NEPA analyses that would be conducted at the commercial lease 

and development phases of projects. 

 Areas available for application for commercial leasing under Alternative 2 support a wide 

variety of plant communities and habitats (see Section 3.7.2). These areas include approximately 

2,175 acres that are currently identified in BLM land use plans for the protection of floodplains, 

TABLE 6.2.2-1 Perennial 

Streams in Utah within the Lease 

Areas Identified under 

Alternative 2 

Stream 

Length of 

Stream (mi) 

 

Bitter Creek 0.8 

Center Fork 1.4 

Cottonwood Canyon 0.1 

Dry Creek 3.7 

Nine-Mile Draw <0.1 

Sweetwater Canyon 0.7 

Tobyago Canyon 2.1 

Wells Draw 0.4 

 

Total 9.0 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-380 

riparian habitats, and special status plant species. Direct and indirect impacts could be incurred 

during project construction and operation and extend over a period of several decades (especially 

within facility and infrastructure footprints) (see Section 5.8.1.2). Some impacts (e.g., habitat 

loss) could continue beyond the termination of tar sands production. 

 Direct impacts on plant communities and habitat from future construction and operation 

activities would include the destruction of vegetation and habitat during land clearing on the 

lease site and also where ancillary facilities such as access roads, pipelines, transmission lines, 

and employer-provided housing would be located. Soils disturbed during construction would be 

susceptible to the introduction and establishment of non-native invasive species, which in turn 

could greatly reduce the success of establishment of native plant communities during reclamation 

of project areas and create a source of future colonization and subsequent degradation of adjacent 

undisturbed areas. Plant communities and habitats could also be adversely affected by changes in 

water quality or availability, resulting in plant mortality or reduced growth, with subsequent 

changes in community composition and structure and declines in habitat quality. Indirect impacts 

on terrestrial and wetland habitats on or off the project site could result from land clearing and 

exposed soil; soil compaction; and changes in topography, surface drainage, and infiltration 

characteristics. These impacts could lead to changes in the abundance and distribution of plant 

species and changes in community structure, as well the introduction or spread of invasive 

species. 

 Affected plant communities and habitats could incur short- and/or long-term changes in 

species composition, abundance, and distribution. While many impacts would be local, occurring 

within construction and operation footprints and in the immediate surrounding area, the 

introduction of invasive species could affect much larger areas. The nature and magnitude of 

these impacts, as well as the communities or habitats affected, would depend on the locations of 

the areas where project construction and facilities would occur, the plant communities and 

habitats present in those areas, and the mitigation measures implemented to address impacts. 

 The area available for application for leasing under Alternative 2 includes locations that 

support oil shale endemic plant species. Local populations of oil shale endemics, which typically 

occur as small scattered populations on a limited number of sites, could be reduced or lost as a 

result of tar sands development activities. Establishment and long-term survival of these species 

on reclaimed land may be difficult. 

 No ACECs are included in the lands available under this alternative. Therefore direct 

impacts on sensitive plant species and plant communities within ACECs would not occur. 

However, one ACEC is located adjacent to the Alternative 2 footprint, the Nine Mile Canyon 

ACEC. This ACEC includes sensitive plant species. Indirect impacts on these species could 

occur. 

 Four ACECs with rare plant species and/or rare or important plant communities are 

located near (within 5 mi) the Alternative 2 footprint: Raven Ridge (2.3 mi), Pariette Wetlands 

(0.8 mi), San Rafael Reef (0.1 mi), and Leers Canyon (2.9 mi). Indirect impacts on the sensitive 

species or communities within these ACECs could occur. 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-381 

 6.2.2.7.3 Wildlife. Under Alternative 2, 129,567 acres of land in Utah would remain 

available for application for commercial leasing for tar sands development. While no impacts on 

wildlife species associated with lands identified as available for application for leasing are 

expected, impacts could result from post-lease construction and operation as described in 

Section 5.8.1.3. These impacts would be considered in greater detail in project-specific 

NEPA analyses that would be conducted at the commercial lease and development phases of 

projects. These areas available for application for leasing support a diverse array of wildlife and 

habitats (see Section 3.7.3). Various stipulations are included in the BLM RMPs that provide 

protection for different wildlife species. These stipulations include lands designated as (1) NSO 

(where the BLM does not allow long-term ground-disturbing activities [i.e., with an impact that 

would last longer than 2 years]), (2) CSU (where the BLM places special restrictions, including 

shifting a ground-disturbing activity by more than 200 m from the proposed location to another 

location to protect a specific resource such as a raptor nest), and (3) TL (where the BLM may 

allow specified activities but not during certain sensitive seasons, such as when raptors are 

nesting or when big game are on their winter ranges). No additional acreage of protected habitat 

has resulted from updates to tar sands stipulations since the preparation of the 2008 OSTS PEIS 

in areas available for application for leasing tar sands in Alternative 2. 

 Areas in Alternative 2 available for application for leasing overlap areas identified by 

state natural resource agencies as seasonal habitat for big game species. These areas include 

mule deer and elk winter and summer ranges (Figures 6.2.2-2 and 6.2.2-3, respectively). 

Table 6.2.2-2 presents the amount of these habitats (as identified by state resource agencies) that 

would occur in the areas available for application and that could be affected by future 

commercial tar sands development in these areas. 

 Potential impacts on wildlife from the construction and operation of future commercial 

tar sands projects could occur in a number of ways and could be related to (1) habitat loss, 

alteration, or fragmentation (as a result of construction); (2) disturbance and displacement of 

biota (by construction and operation activities and the presence of project infrastructure); 

(3) mortality (from construction activities and collisions with project infrastructure and vehicles); 

(4) exposure to hazardous materials; and (5) increase in human access. These can result in 

changes in habitat use; changes in behavior; changes in predator populations; and chronic or 

acute toxicity from hydrocarbons, herbicides, or other contaminant exposures. 

 Wildlife could also be affected by human activities that would not be directly associated 

with commercial tar sands projects or workforces but that instead would be associated with the 

potentially increased access to BLM-administered lands that had previously received little use. 

The construction of new access roads or improvements to old access roads could lead to 

increased human access into the area. Potential impacts associated with increased access include 

the disturbance of wildlife from human activities, such as an increase in legal and illegal harvest, 

an increase of invasive vegetation, and an increase in the incidence of fires. 

 The potential for impacts on wildlife and their habitats by commercial tar sands 

development is directly related to the amount of land disturbance that would occur with a 

commercial project (including its ancillary facilities, such as power plants and utility and 

pipeline ROWs), the duration and timing of construction and operation periods, and the habitat 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-382 

FIGURE 6.2.2-2 Lands Available for Application for Tar Sands Leasing under Alternative 2 in 

Relation to the Summer and Winter Ranges of the Mule Deer 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-383 

FIGURE 6.2.2-3 Lands Available for Application for Tar Sands Leasing under Alternative 2 in 

Relation to the Summer and Winter Ranges of the Elk 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-384 

affected by development (i.e., the location of the project). 

Indirect effects, such as impacts resulting from the 

erosion of disturbed land surfaces, water depletions, 

contamination, and disturbance and harassment, are also 

considered. Their magnitude is also considered to be 

proportional to the amount of land disturbance. 

 6.2.2.7.4 Threatened, Endangered, and 

Sensitive Species. Under Alternative 2, four land use 

plans would be amended to identify 129,567 acres of land 

in Utah as available for application for leasing for 

commercial development of tar sands. See Section 2.4.3 

(and Table 2.4.2-2) for a full description of Alternative 2 

for commercial tar sands development. Under this 

alternative, tar sands development would be excluded 

from core or priority habitats for the greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus), as 

defined by the guidance set forth in the BLM’s sage-grouse interim policy (BLM 2005f). There 

would be no impacts on threatened and endangered species associated with this land use plan 

amendment action. Impacts could result, however, from post-lease construction and operation as 

described in Section 5.8.1.4. These impacts would be considered in greater detail in projectspecific NEPA analyses that would be conducted at the commercial lease and development 

phases of projects. In addition, the BLM’s approval of any projects would be subject to 

appropriate compliance with the ESA, and those policies provided under the Bald and Golden 

Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. 

 Under Alternative 2, 63 of the 72 federal candidate, BLM-designated sensitive, and statelisted species listed in Table 6.2.2-3, and 21 of the 22 federally listed threatened or endangered 

species listed in Table 6.2.2-4 could occur in areas that are available for application for 

commercial leasing of tar sands. This determination is based on records of occurrence in project 

counties, species occurrences from state natural heritage programs,25 and the presence of 

potentially suitable habitat.26 Potential lease areas include about 471 acres of critical habitat for 

the Mexican spotted owl (Strix occidentalis lucida). There are no designated critical habitats for 

Colorado River endangered fishes within potential lease areas; however, critical habitat for 

 

25 Spatial data were obtained from state natural heritage program or conservation offices that represented USGS 

quad-level or township range-level occurrences of species (CNHP 2011; UDWR 2011; WYNDD 2011a). A 

spatial analysis was performed to determine the distance of recorded occurrences of each species to the lease 

areas. For species tracked in these state databases, these distance measurements are provided in Tables 6.2.2-3 

and 6.2.2-4. 

26 Spatial models representing potentially suitable habitat of terrestrial vertebrate wildlife species were obtained 

from USGS (2007) and WYNDD (2011b). For species with an available habitat model, a spatial analysis was 

performed to quantify the amount of potentially suitable habitat within the lease areas. This quantification is 

presented in Tables 6.2.2-3 and 6.2.2-4. 

TABLE 6.2.2-2 State-Identified Elk 

and Mule Deer Habitat Present in 

the Alternative 2 Tar Sands Lease 

Areas 

Habitat Description 

Area of Habitat 

(acres) 

 

Mule Deer 

Winter habitat 93,285 

Summer habitat 17,345 

 

Elk 

Winter habitat 87,933 

Summer habitat 17,412 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-385 

TABLE 6.2.2-3 Potential Effects of Commercial Tar Sands Development under Alternative 2 on 

BLM-Designated Sensitive Species, Federal Candidates for Listing, State-Listed Species, and State 

Species of Special Concern 

Scientific Name Common Name Statusa

Utah Counties 

within the Study Area 

in Which Species 

May Occur Potential for Effectb

 

Plants 

Amsonia jonesii Jones blue star BLM-S Duchesne, Emery, 

Garfield, Grand, 

San Juan, Uintah, 

Wayne

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the project area. 

Quad-level occurrences are within 13 mi 

from the STSAs. 

 

Aquilegia 

scopulorum var.

goodrichii 

Utah columbine BLM-S Carbon, Duchesne, 

Emery, Grand, Uintah 

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Arabis vivariensis Park rockcress BLM-S Uintah Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Astragalus 

detritalis

Debris milkvetch BLM-S Duchesne, Uintah Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the project area. 

Quad-level occurrences of this species 

intersect the STSAs.

 

Astragalus 

duchesnensis

Duchesne 

milkvetch

BLM-S Duchesne, Uintah Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the project area. 

Quad-level occurrences of this species 

intersect the STSAs.

 

Astragalus 

equisolensis 

Horseshoe 

milkvetch 

BLM-S Uintah Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Astragalus 

hamiltonii 

Hamilton’s 

milkvetch 

BLM-S Uintah Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Astragalus 

musiniensis

Ferron milkvetch BLM-S Emery, Garfield, 

Grand, Wayne

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the project area. 

Quad-level occurrences are within 13 mi 

from the STSAs. 

 

Astragalus 

naturitensis

Naturita milkvetch BLM-S San Juan No impact. Suitable habitat for this 

species is not known to occur in the 

vicinity of any project areas. Nearest 

occurrences are approximately 40 mi 

from the STSAs.

 

Astragalus 

piscator

Fisher Towers 

milkvetch

BLM-S Garfield, Grand, 

San Juan, Wayne

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the STSAs.

 

Astragalus 

rafaelensis

San Rafael 

milkvetch

BLM-S Emery, Grand Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the STSAs.

 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-386 

TABLE 6.2.2-3 (Cont.)

Scientific Name Common Name Statusa

Utah Counties 

within the Study Area 

in Which Species 

May Occur Potential for Effectb

 

Plants (Cont.) 

Cirsium ownbeyi Ownbey’s thistle BLM-S Uintah No impact. Suitable habitat for this 

species is not known to occur in the 

vicinity of any project areas. Nearest 

occurrences are approximately 20 mi 

from the STSAs.

 

Cleomella 

palmeriana var. 

goodrichii 

Goodrich cleomella BLM-S Uintah Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Cryptantha 

barnebyi 

Barneby’s cat’s-eye BLM-S Uintah Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Cryptantha 

caespitosa

Caespitose cat’seyeBLM-S Carbon, Duchesne, 

Uintah

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the project area. 

Quad-level occurrences are within 9 mi 

from the STSAs. 

 

Cryptantha 

grahamii 

Graham’s cat’s-eye BLM-S Uintah Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Cryptantha 

osterhoutii

Osterhout cat’s eye BLM-S Emery, Garfield, 

Grand, San Juan, 

Wayne

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the STSAs.

 

Cryptantha 

rollinsii

Rollins’ cat’s eye BLM-S; 

WY-SC

Duchesne, 

San Raphael, Uintah, 

Wayne

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the STSAs. Quadlevel occurrences of this species intersect 

the STSAs.

 

Cymopterus 

duchesnensis

Uinta Basin springparsleyBLM-S Duchesne, Uintah Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the STSAs. Quadlevel occurrences of this species intersect 

the STSAs.

 

Eriogonum 

contortum

Grand buckwheat BLM-S Grand Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the STSAs. Quadlevel occurrences are within 13 mi from 

the STSAs. 

 

Eriogonum 

ephedroides

Ephedra buckwheat BLM-S Uintah Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the STSAs. Quadlevel occurrences of this species intersect 

the STSAs.

 

Frasera 

ackermanae 

Ackerman frasera BLM-S Uintah Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-387 

TABLE 6.2.2-3 (Cont.)

Scientific Name Common Name Statusa

Utah Counties 

within the Study Area 

in Which Species 

May Occur Potential for Effectb

 

Plants (Cont.) 

Gilia stenothyrsa Narrow-stem gilia BLM-S Carbon, Duchesne, 

Emery, Uintah

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the STSAs. Quadlevel occurrences of this species intersect 

the STSAs.

 

Hymenoxys 

lapidicola 

Rock hymenoxys BLM-S Uintah Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Lepidium huberi Huber’s 

pepperplant 

BLM-S Uintah Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Listera borealis Northern twayblade BLM-S Duchesne, San Juan No impact. Suitable habitat for this 

species is not known to occur in the 

vicinity of any of the STSAs. Nearest 

occurrences are approximately 90 mi 

from the STSAs.

 

Lygodesmia 

doloresensis

Dolores River 

skeletonplant

BLM-S Grand Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the STSAs. Quadlevel occurrences are within 13 mi from 

the STSAs. 

 

Mentzelia 

goodrichii 

Goodrich’s 

blazingstar 

BLM-S Duchesne, Uintah Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Mimulus 

eastwoodiae

Eastwood monkeyflowerBLM-S Garfield, Grand, 

San Juan

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the STSAs.

 

Minuartia 

nuttallii

Nuttall sandwort BLM-S Duchesne Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the STSAs.

 

Parthenium 

ligulatum

Ligulate feverfew BLM-S Wayne Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the STSAs. Quadlevel occurrences of this species intersect 

the STSAs.

 

Pediomelum 

aromaticum

Paradox breadroot BLM-S Grand, San Juan Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the STSAs.

 

Penstemon 

scariosus var. 

albifluvis

White River 

beardtongue

ESA-C; Uintah Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the STSAs. Quadlevel occurrences of this species intersect 

the STSAs.

 

Phacelia 

argylensis 

Argyle Canyon 

phacelia 

BLM-S Uintah Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-388 

TABLE 6.2.2-3 (Cont.)

Scientific Name Common Name Statusa

Utah Counties 

within the Study Area 

in Which Species 

May Occur Potential for Effectb

 

Plants (Cont.) 

Townsendia 

strigosa

Strigose EasterdaisyBLM-S Duchesne, Uintah Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the STSAs.

 

Yucca sterilis Spanish bayonet BLM-S Uintah Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the study area.

 

Invertebrates 

Speyeria nokomis 

nokomis

Great Basin 

silverspot butterfly

BLM-S Duchesne, Uintah Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the STSAs.

 

Fish 

Catostomus 

discobolus

Bluehead sucker BLM-S Carbon, Duchesne, 

Emery, Garfield, 

Grand, San Juan, 

Uintah

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur near the STSAs. Quadlevel occurrences of this species intersect 

the STSAs.

 

Catostomus 

latipinnis

Flannelmouth 

sucker

BLM-S Carbon, Duchesne, 

Emery, Garfield, 

Grand, San Juan, 

Uintah, Wayne

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur near the STSAs. Quadlevel occurrences of this species intersect 

the STSAs.

 

Catostomus 

platyrhynchus 

Mountain sucker BLM-S Carbon, Duchesne, 

Emery, Grand, Uintah 

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the STSAs.

 

Gila robusta Roundtail chub BLM-S Carbon, Duchesne, 

Emery, Garfield, 

Grand, San Juan, 

Uintah, Wayne

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur near the STSAs. Quadlevel occurrences of this species intersect 

the STSAs.

 

Oncorhynchus 

clarkii pleuriticus

Colorado River 

cutthroat trout

BLM-S Duchesne, Garfield, 

Uintah, Wayne

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur near the STSAs. Quadlevel occurrences of this species intersect 

the STSAs.

 

Amphibians 

Hyla arenicolor Canyon treefrog BLM-S Garfield, Grand, 

Wayne, San Juan

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 3,743 acres of potentially 

suitable habitat for this species occurs in 

the STSAs.

 

Rana pipiens Northern leopard 

frog

BLM-S Carbon, Duchesne, 

Emery, Garfield, 

Grand, San Juan, 

Uintah, Wayne

Potential for negative impact.

Approximately 14 acres of potentially 

suitable habitat for this species occurs in 

the STSAs. Nearest occurrences are 

approximately 80 mi from the STSAs.

 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-389 

TABLE 6.2.2-3 (Cont.)

Scientific Name Common Name Statusa

Utah Counties 

within the Study Area 

in Which Species 

May Occur Potential for Effectb

 

Amphibians 

(Cont.) 

 

Spea 

intermontana

Great basin 

spadefoot

BLM-S Carbon, Duchesne, 

Emery, Garfield, 

Grand, San Juan, 

Uintah, Wayne

Potential for negative impact.

Approximately 73,173 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the STSAs. Nearest 

occurrences are approximately 20 mi 

from the STSAs.

 

Snakes 

Elaphe guttata Corn snake BLM-S; 

UT-SC

Grand, San Juan Potential for negative impact.

Approximately 1,736 acres of potentially 

suitable habitat for this species occurs in 

the STSAs. Quad-level occurrences are 

within 4 mi from the STSAs. 

 

Liochlorophis 

vernalis

Smooth greensnake BLM-S; 

UT-SC

Carbon, Duchesne, 

Grand, San Juan, 

Uintah

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat for the species does not occur in 

the STSAs. Quad-level occurrences of 

this species intersect the STSAs.

 

Xantusia vigilis Desert night lizard BLM-S; 

UT-SC

Garfield, San Juan Potential for negative impact.

Approximately 28 acres of potentially 

suitable habitat for this species occurs in 

the STSAs. Quad-level occurrences of 

this species intersect the STSAs.

 

Birds 

Accipiter gentilis Northern goshawk BLM-S Carbon, Duchesne, 

Emery, Garfield, 

Grand, San Juan, 

Uintah, Wayne

Potential for negative impact.

Approximately 24,054 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the STSAs. Quad-level 

occurrences of this species intersect the 

STSAs.

 

Ammodramus 

savannarum

Grasshopper 

sparrow

UT-SC Duchesne, Uintah, 

Utah, Wasatch

No impact. Suitable habitat for the 

species does not occur in the STSAs.

 

Asio flammeus Short-eared owl BLM-S; 

UT-SC

Carbon, Duchesne, 

Emery, Grand, 

Garfield, San Juan, 

Uintah, Wayne

No impact. Suitable habitat for the 

species does not occur in the STSAs. 

 

Athene 

cunicularia

Burrowing owl BLM-S; 

UT-SC 

Carbon, Duchesne, 

Emery, Garfield, 

Grand, San Juan, 

Uintah, Wayne

Potential for negative impact.

Approximately 41,134 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the STSAs. Quad-level 

occurrences of this species intersect the 

STSAs.

 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-390 

TABLE 6.2.2-3 (Cont.)

Scientific Name Common Name Statusa

Utah Counties 

within the Study Area 

in Which Species 

May Occur Potential for Effectb

 

Birds (Cont.) 

Buteo regalis Ferruginous hawk BLM-S; 

UT-SC; 

Carbon, Duchesne, 

Emery, Garfield, 

Grand, San Juan, 

Uintah, Wayne

Potential for negative impact.

Approximately 29,904 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the STSAs. Quad-level 

occurrences of this species intersect the 

STSAs.

 

Centrocercus 

minimus

Gunnison sagegrouseESA-C; 

UT-SC

Grand, San Juan No impact. Suitable habitat for the 

species does not occur in the project area, 

and the species is not known to occur in 

the vicinity of the STSAs. Nearest 

occurrences are approximately 30 mi 

from the STSAs.

 

Centrocercus 

urophasianus

Greater sage-grouse ESA-C; 

BLM-S; 

UT-SC 

Carbon, Duchesne, 

Emery, Garfield, 

Grand, San Juan, 

Uintah, Wayne

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 26,630 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the STSAs. Quad-level 

occurrences of this species intersect the 

STSAs.

 

Coccyzus 

americanus 

occidentalis

Western yellowbilled cuckooESA-C; 

BLM-S 

Duchesne, Garfield, 

Grand, San Juan, 

Uintah, Wayne

Potential for negative impact. Species 

may occur in riparian habitats near the 

STSAs. Quad-level occurrences of this 

species intersect the STSAs.

 

Cypseloides niger Black swift BLM-S; 

UT-SC

Duchesne, Uintah No impact. Suitable habitat for the 

species does not occur in the STSAs, and 

it is not known to occur in the vicinity of 

the STSAs. Nearest occurrences are 

approximately 20 mi from the STSAs.

 

Dolichonyx 

oryzivorus

Bobolink BLM-S; 

UT-SC

Carbon, Duchesne, 

Emery, Garfield, 

Grand, San Juan, 

Uintah, Wayne

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat for this species may occur in the 

STSAs. Quad-level occurrences of this 

species intersect the STSAs.

 

Haliaeetus 

leucocephalus

Bald eagle BLM-S; Carbon, Duchesne, 

Emery, Garfield, 

Grand, San Juan, 

Uintah, Wayne

Potential for negative impact.

Approximately 48,037 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the STSAs. Quad-level 

occurrences of this species intersect the 

STSAs.

 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-391 

TABLE 6.2.2-3 (Cont.)

Scientific Name Common Name Statusa

Utah Counties 

within the Study Area 

in Which Species 

May Occur Potential for Effectb

 

Birds (Cont.) 

Melanerpes lewis Lewis’s 

woodpecker

BLM-S; 

UT-SC 

Carbon, Duchesne, 

Emery, Garfield, 

Grand, San Juan, 

Uintah, Wayne

Potential for negative impact.

Approximately 6,021 acres of potentially 

suitable habitat for this species occurs in 

the STSAs. Quad-level occurrences of 

this species intersect the STSAs.

 

Numenius 

americanus

Long-billed curlew BLM-S; 

UT-SC 

Carbon, Duchesne, 

Emery, Garfield, 

Grand, San Juan, 

Uintah, Wayne

Potential for negative impact.

Approximately 498 acres of potentially 

suitable habitat for this species occurs in 

the STSAs. Quad-level occurrences of 

this species intersect the STSAs.

 

Pelecanus 

erythrorhynchos

American white 

pelican

BLM-S; 

UT-SC

Carbon, Duchesne, 

Emery, Garfield, 

Grand, San Juan, 

Uintah, Wayne

Potential for negative impact.

Approximately 626 acres of potentially 

suitable habitat for this species occurs in 

the STSAs. Quad-level occurrences of 

this species intersect the STSAs.

 

Picoides 

tridactylus

Three-toed 

woodpecker

BLM-S; 

UT-SC

Carbon, Duchesne, 

Emery, Garfield, 

Grand, San Juan, 

Uintah, Wayne

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 1,295 acres of potentially 

suitable habitat for this species occurs in 

the STSAs.

 

Mammals 

Brachylagus 

idahoensis

Pygmy rabbit BLM-S; 

UT-SC 

Garfield, Wayne No impact. Suitable habitat for the 

species does not occur in the project area 

and it is not known to occur in the 

vicinity of the STSAs. Nearest 

occurrences are approximately 40 mi 

from the STSAs.

 

Corynorhinus 

townsendii 

pallescens

Townsend’s bigeared batBLM-S; 

UT-SC 

Carbon, Duchesne, 

Emery, Garfield, 

Grand, San Juan, 

Uintah, Wayne

Potential for negative impact.

Approximately 76,547 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the STSAs. Quad-level 

occurrences of this species intersect the 

STSAs.

 

Cynomys 

gunnisoni

Gunnison’s prairie 

dog

ESA-C; 

BLM-S; 

UT-SC

Grand, San Juan No impact. Suitable habitat for the 

species does not occur in the project area 

and it is not known to occur in the 

vicinity of the STSAs. Nearest 

occurrences are approximately 40 mi 

from the STSAs.

 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-392 

TABLE 6.2.2-3 (Cont.)

Scientific Name Common Name Statusa

Utah Counties 

within the Study Area 

in Which Species 

May Occur Potential for Effectb

 

Mammals (Cont.) 

Cynomys 

leucurus

White-tailed prairie 

dog

BLM-S; 

UT-SC 

Carbon, Duchesne, 

Emery, Grand, Uintah

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 29,890 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the STSAs. Quad-level 

occurrences of this species intersect the 

STSAs.

 

Euderma 

maculatum

Spotted bat BLM-S; 

UT-SC 

Duchesne, Garfield, 

Grand, San Juan, 

Uintah, Wayne

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 63,552 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the STSAs. Quad-level 

occurrences of this species intersect the 

STSAs.

 

Idionycteris 

phyllotis

Allen’s big-eared 

bat

BLM-S; 

UT-SC

Garfield, Grand, 

San Juan, Wayne

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat for the species may occur in the 

STSAs. Quad-level occurrences are 

within 13 mi from the STSAs. 

 

Lasiurus 

blossevillii

Western red bat BLM-S; 

UT-SC

Carbon, Emery, 

Grand, Garfield, 

San Juan, Wayne

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat for the species may occur in the 

STSAs. Quad-level occurrences are 

within 10 mi from the STSAs. 

 

Myotis 

thysanodes

Fringed myotis BLM-S; 

UT-SC 

Duchesne, Garfield, 

Grand, San Juan, 

Uintah, Wayne

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 82,539 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the STSAs. Quad-level 

occurrences of this species intersect the 

STSAs.

 

Nyctinomops 

macrotis

Big free-tailed bat BLM-S; 

UT-SC

Carbon, Duchesne, 

Emery, Garfield, 

Grand, San Juan, 

Uintah, Wayne

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 61,189 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the STSAs. Quad-level 

occurrences of this species intersect the 

STSAs.

 

Vulpes macrotis Kit fox BLM-S; 

UT-SC

Carbon, Duchesne, 

Emery, Garfield, 

Grand, San Juan, 

Uintah, Wayne

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 1,779 acres of potentially 

suitable habitat for this species occurs in 

the STSAs. Quad-level occurrences of 

this species intersect the STSAs.

Footnotes are on next page. 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-393 

TABLE 6.2.2-3 (Cont.) 

a Status categories: BLM-S = listed by the BLM as sensitive; ESA-C = candidate for listing under the ESA; 

UT-SC = species of special concern in the state of Utah. 

b Potential impacts are based upon the presence of potentially suitable habitat or recorded occurrences in the vicinity of the 

STSAs. Recorded occurrences were obtained as USGS quad-level or township range-level element occurrence records 

from state natural heritage program offices (CNHP 2011; UDWR 2011; WYNDD 2011a). If available for terrestrial 

vertebrates, SWReGAP animal habitat suitability models (USGS 2007) and terrestrial vertebrate distribution models for 

the state of Wyoming (WYNDD 2011b) were used to determine the presence of potentially suitable habitat in the STSAs.

Colorado River endangered fishes may occur downstream within 10 mi of potential tar sands 

lease areas (Figure 6.2.2-4). Areas including greater sage-grouse habitat are shown in 

Figure 6.2.2-5. Although greater sage-grouse core and priority habitats27 are excluded from tar 

sands development under this alternative, core and priority habitats may occur in close proximity 

(<1 mi) to proposed lease areas. 

 The potential for impacts on threatened, endangered, and sensitive species (and their 

habitats) by commercial tar sands development is directly related to the amount of land 

disturbance that could occur with a commercial project (including its ancillary facilities, such as 

power plants and utility and pipeline ROWs), the duration and timing of construction and 

operation periods, and the habitats affected by development. Indirect effects, such as impacts 

resulting from the erosion of disturbed land surfaces, surface or groundwater depletions, 

contamination, and disturbance and harassment of animal species, are also considered, but their 

relative magnitude is considered proportional to the amount of land disturbance. 

 Potential impacts on threatened, endangered, and sensitive species under Alternative 2 

are similar to or the same as impacts on aquatic resources, plant communities and habitats, and 

wildlife described in Sections 6.2.2.7.1, 6.2.2.7.2, and 6.2.2.7.3, respectively. The most 

important difference is the potential consequence of the impacts. Because of their low population 

sizes, threatened and endangered species are far more vulnerable than more common and 

widespread species. Low population size makes them more vulnerable to the effects of habitat 

fragmentation, habitat alteration, habitat degradation, human disturbance and harassment, 

mortality of individuals, and the loss of genetic diversity. Specific impacts associated with 

development would depend on the locations of projects relative to species populations and the 

details of project development. These impacts would be evaluated in detail in project-specific 

assessments and consultations conducted prior to leasing and development. 

 

27 Data and habitats considered as core or priority greater sage-grouse habitat for this PEIS are discussed in a text 

box in Section 3.7.4.3.1. 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-394 

TABLE 6.2.2-4 Potential Effects of Commercial Tar Sands Development under Alternative 2 on 

Federally Listed Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Species 

Scientific Name Common Name Statusa

Utah Counties 

within the Study Area 

in Which Species 

May Occur Potential for Effectb

 

Plants 

Cycladenia 

humilis var. 

jonesii 

Jones cycladenia ESA-T Emery, Garfield, 

Grand, Uintah

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the STSAs. Quadlevel occurrences of this species intersect 

the STSAs.

 

Erigeron 

maguirei 

Maguire daisy ESA-T Emery, Garfield, 

Wayne

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the STSAs.

 

Pediocactus 

despainii 

San Rafael cactus ESA-E Emery, Wayne Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the STSAs. Quadlevel occurrences of this species intersect 

the STSAs.

 

Pediocactus 

winkleri 

Winkler cactus ESA-T Emery, Wayne Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the STSAs. Quadlevel occurrences are within 11 mi from 

the STSAs. 

 

Penstemon 

grahamii 

Graham’s 

beardtongue

ESA-PT; 

BLM-S

Duchesne, Uintah Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the STSAs. Quadlevel occurrences of this species intersect 

the STSA project areas.

 

Schoenocrambe 

argillacea 

Clay reed-mustard ESA-T Uintah Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the STSAs. Quadlevel occurrences are within 6 mi from 

the STSAs. 

 

Schoenocrambe 

barnebyi

Barneby reedmustardESA-E Emery, Wayne Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the STSAs. Quadlevel occurrences are within 9 mi from 

the STSAs. 

 

Schoenocrambe 

suffrutescens

Shrubby reedmustardESA-E Duchesne, Uintah Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the STSAs. Quadlevel occurrences of this species intersect 

the STSAs.

 

Sclerocactus 

brevispinus

Pariette cactus ESA-T Duchesne, Uintah Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the STSAs. Quadlevel occurrences of this species intersect 

the STSAs.

 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-395 

TABLE 6.2.2-4 (Cont.)

Scientific Name Common Name Statusa

Utah Counties 

within the Study Area 

in Which Species 

May Occur Potential for Effectb

 

Plants (Cont.) 

Sclerocactus 

wetlandicus

Uinta Basin 

hookless cactus

ESA-T Carbon, Duchesne, 

Uintah

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the STSAs. Quadlevel occurrences of this species intersect 

the STSAs.

 

Sclerocactus 

wrightiae

Wright fishhook 

cactus

ESA-E Emery, Wayne Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the STSAs. Quadlevel occurrences of this species intersect 

the STSAs.

 

Spiranthes 

diluvialis

Ute ladies’-tresses ESA-T Duchesne, Garfield, 

Uintah, Wayne

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the STSAs. Quadlevel occurrences of this species intersect 

the STSAs.

 

Townsendia 

aprica

Last chance 

townsendia

ESA-T Emery, Wayne Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the STSAs. Quadlevel occurrences of this species intersect 

the STSAs.

 

Fish 

Gila cypha Humpback chub ESA-E Carbon, Emery, 

Garfield, Grand, San 

Juan, Uintah, Wayne

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur near the STSAs. 

Designated critical habitat occurs within 

10 mi from STSA areas. Quad-level 

occurrences are within 4 mi from the 

STSAs. 

 

Gila elegans Bonytail ESA-E Carbon, Duchesne, 

Emery, Garfield, 

Grand, San Juan, 

Uintah, Wayne

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur near the STSAs. 

Designated critical habitat occurs within 

10 mi from STSA areas. Quad-level 

occurrences of this species intersect the 

STSAs.

 

Ptychocheilus 

lucius 

Colorado 

pikeminnow

ESA-E Carbon, Duchesne, 

Emery, Garfield, 

Grand, San Juan, 

Uintah, Wayne

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur near the STSAs. 

Designated critical habitat occurs within 

6 mi from the STSAs. Quad-level 

occurrences of this species intersect the 

STSAs.

 

Xyrauchen 

texanus 

Razorback sucker ESA-E Carbon, Emery 

Garfield, Grand, San 

Juan, Uintah, Wayne

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur near the STSAs. 

Designated critical habitat occurs within 

6 mi from the STSAs. Quad-level 

occurrences of this species intersect the 

STSAs.

 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-396 

TABLE 6.2.2-4 (Cont.)

Scientific Name Common Name Statusa

Utah Counties 

within the Study Area 

in Which Species 

May Occur Potential for Effectb

 

Birds 

Empidonax 

traillii extimus 

Southwestern 

willow flycatcher

ESA-E Carbon, Emery, 

Garfield, Grand, 

San Juan, Uintah, 

Wayne

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 8,782 acres of potentially 

suitable habitat for this species occurs in 

the STSAs.

 

Gymnogyps 

californianus 

California condor ESA-E Grand Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 171 acres of potentially 

suitable habitat for this species occurs in 

the STSAs.

 

Strix occidentalis 

lucida 

Mexican spotted 

owl

ESA-T Emery, Garfield, 

Grand, San Juan, 

Uintah, Wayne

Potential for negative impact.

Approximately 19,514 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the STSAs. Quad-level 

occurrences of this species intersect the 

STSAs.

 

Mammals 

Lynx canadensis Canada lynx ESA-T Emery, Uintah No impact. Suitable habitat for the 

species does not occur in the STSAs. 

Designated critical habitat does not occur 

in the vicinity of the project areas. 

Nearest quad-level occurrences are 

approximately 13 mi from the STSAs. 

 

Mustela nigripes Black-footed ferret ESA-XN Carbon, Duchesne, 

Emery, Grand, 

San Juan, Uintah

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 5,978 acres of potentially 

suitable habitat for this species occurs in 

the STSAs. Quad-level occurrences of 

this species intersect the STSAs.

a Status categories: BLM-S = listed by the BLM as sensitive; ESA-E = listed as endangered under the ESA; 

ESA-PT = proposed for listing as a threatened species under the ESA; ESA-T = listed as threatened under the ESA; 

ESA-XN = experimental, nonessential population. 

b Potential impacts are based upon the presence of potentially suitable habitat or recorded occurrences in the vicinity of the 

STSAs. Recorded occurrences were obtained as USGS quad-level or township range-level element occurrence records 

from the UDWR (2011). If available for terrestrial vertebrates, SWReGAP animal habitat suitability models (USGS 2007) 

were used to determine the presence of potentially suitable habitat in the STSAs. Spatial data for designated critical 

habitat were obtained from the USFWS Critical Habitat Portal (USFWS 2011).

 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-397 

FIGURE 6.2.2-4 Designated Critical Habitats of Threatened and Endangered Species That Are in 

or near Tar Sands Lease Areas under Alternative 2
Final OSTS PEIS 6-398 

FIGURE 6.2.2-5 Distribution of Core and Priority Habitat Areas for Greater Sage-Grouse That 

Are in or near Pending Tar Sands Lease Areas under Alternative 2 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-399 

6.2.2.8 Visual Resources 

 The lands made available for application for leasing for commercial development of tar 

sands under Alternative 2 support a wide variety of visual resources (Section 3.9). These 

resources would not be affected by the amendment of land use plans to identify these lease areas. 

Visual resources in and around the identified areas, however, could be affected by subsequent 

commercial development of tar sands. 

 Scenic resource areas are located within 5 or 15 mi of the areas in Alternative 2 identified 

as available for commercial leasing (Figures 6.2.2-6 through 6.2.2-9). The 5-mi zone 

corresponds to the BLM’s VRM foreground-middleground distance limit, and the 15-mi zone 

corresponds to the BLM’s background distance limit. Based on the assumption of an 

unobstructed view of a commercial tar sands project, viewers in these areas would be likely to 

perceive some level of visual impact from the project; more impacts would be expected for 

resources within the foreground-middleground distance, and fewer for resources within the 

background distance. Beyond the background distance, the project might be visible but would 

likely occupy a very small visual angle and create low levels of visual contrast such that impacts 

would be minor to negligible. Table 6.2.2-5 presents the scenic resource areas that fall within 

these zones. 

 Visual resources at these areas, as well as elsewhere within the areas available for 

application for leasing, could be affected at and near where commercial tar sands projects are 

developed and operated, and at areas where supporting infrastructure (such as utility and pipeline 

ROWs) would be located. Visual resources could be affected by ROW clearing, project 

construction, and operation (see Section 5.9.1). Potential impacts would be associated with 

construction equipment and activity, cleared project areas, and the type and visibility of 

individual project components such as tar sands processing facilities, utility ROWs, and surface 

mines. The nature, magnitude, and extent of project-related impacts would depend on the type, 

location, and design of the individual project components. 

6.2.2.9 Cultural Resources 

 Alternative 2 includes 129,567 acres of public land available for application for 

commercial tar sands leasing. The lands available for application for leasing overlap with some 

lands identified as having cultural resources present (O’Rourke et al. 2012). Approximately 14% 

of public lands that would remain available for application for leasing in the STSAs under 

Alternative 2 have been surveyed for cultural resources (more than 18,139 acres in addition to 

423 linear mi).28 In these areas that have been surveyed, 273 sites have been identified. 

Additional resources are likely to be found in unsurveyed portions of the study area. On 

the basis of a sensitivity analysis conducted for the Class I Cultural Resources Overview 

 

28 This percentage was calculated by using block acre surveys only and does not include approximately 423 linear 

miles of survey. 
FIGURE 6.2.2-6 Scenic Resource Areas within the 5- and 15-mi Zones around the Lands Available for ApplicatioAlternative 2 for the Asphalt Ridge, Pariette, and Raven Ridge STSAs
FIGURE 6.2.2-7 Scenic Resource Areas within the 5- and 15-mi Zones around the Lands Available for Application Alternative 2 for the Hill Creek, P.R. Spring, and Sunnyside STSAs
FIGURE 6.2.2-8 Scenic Resource Areas within the 5- and 15-mi Zones around the Lands Available for ApplicatioAlternative 2 for the San Rafael STSA 
FIGURE 6.2.2-9 Scenic Resource Areas within the 5- and 15-mi Zones around the Lands Available for ApplicatioAlternative 2 for the Tar Sand Triangle and White Canyon STSAs 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-404 

TABLE 6.2.2-5 Visually Sensitive Areas That Could Be Affected by Commercial Tar Sands 

Projects Developed in Potential Lease Areas under Alternative 2 

Scenic Resources within 5 mi 

of Alternative 2 Lease Areas 

Scenic Resources between 5 and 15 mi 

of Alternative 2 Lease Areas 

 

Bull Canyon, Crack Canyon, Dark Canyon ISA Complex, 

Desolation Canyon, Devils Canyon, Dirty Devil, Escalante 

Canyons Tract 1, Fiddler Butte, Flume Canyon, French 

Spring-Happy Canyon, Horseshoe Canyon (South), Jack 

Canyon, Link Flats ISA, Mexican Mountain, Mt. Pennel, 

Muddy Creek, North Escalante Canyons/The Gulch, San 

Rafael Reef, Sids Cabin 202, Sids Mountain, Spruce Canyon, 

Steep Creek, and Winter Ridge WSAs. 

Book Cliffs Mountain Browse ISA, Bull Canyon, Bull 

Mountain, Butler Wash, Cheese Box Canyon, Coal Canyon, 

Crack Canyon, Daniels Canyon, Dark Canyon ISA Complex, 

Demaree Canyon, Desolation Canyon, Dirty Devil, Fiddler 

Butte, Floy Canyon, Flume Canyon, Horseshoe Canyon 

(South), Indian Creek, Little Rockies, Mancos Mesa, 

Mexican Mountain, Mt. Ellen-Blue Hills, Mt. Hillers, 

Mt. Pennel, Muddy Creek, North Escalante Canyons/The 

Gulch, Oil Spring Mountain, Phipps – Death Hollow ISA, 

San Rafael Reef, Scorpion, Sids Mountain, Skull Creek, 

Spruce Canyon, Steep Creek, Turtle Canyon, and Willow 

Creek WSAs. 

 

Copper Globe, Cottonwood Canyon, Cottonwood-Diamond 

Watershed, I-70 Scenic, Lears Canyon, Lower Green River 

Corridor, Lucky Strike, Muddy Creek, Muddy CreekTomsich Butte, Nine Mile, Pariette, Raven Ridge, Raven 

Ridge Addition, Raven Ridge/Raven Ridge Addition, Red 

Mountain-Dry Fork, Rock Art, San Rafael Canyon, San 

Rafael Reef, Shepards End, Smith Cabin, Swaseys Cabin, 

Temple Mountain, Tidwell Draw, and Wild Horse Canyon 

ACECs. 

Big Flat Tops, Big Hole, Cleveland Lloyd Dino Quarry, Coal 

Oil Rim, Cottonwood Canyon, Cottonwood-Diamond 

Watershed, Dry Lake, Dry Wash, Grassy Trail, Hidden 

Splendor, Hunt Cabin, I-70 Scenic, Kings Crown, Little 

Susan, Lower Green River Corridor, Molen Seep, Moosehead 

Mountain, Muddy Creek, Muddy Creek-Tomsich Butte, 

Nine Mile, North Salt Wash, Oil Spring Mountain, Raven 

Ridge, Raven Ridge Addition, Raven Ridge/Raven Ridge 

Addition, Red Mountain-Dry Fork, Rock Art, San Rafael 

Canyon, San Rafael Reef, Sand Cove, Segers Hole, Short 

Creek, White River Riparian, and Wilsonville ACECs. 

 

Blue Mountain, Dark Canyon, Nine Mile, Red Mountain-Dry 

Fork, and White Canyon SRMAs. 

Beef Basin, Blue Mountain, Dark Canyon, Indian Creek, 

Labyrinth Rims/Gemini Bridges, Nine Mile, Pelican Lake, 

Red Mountain-Dry Fork, White Canyon, and White River 

SRMAs. 

 

Bicentennial and Dinosaur Diamond Prehistoric Highways, 

Flaming Gorge-Uintas National, and Indian Canyon Scenic 

Byways; and Nine Mile Canyon Backway. 

Bicentennial Highway, Bull Creek Pass National Back 

Country Byway, Dead Horse Point Mesa Scenic Byway, 

Dinosaur Diamond Prehistoric Highway, Eccles Canyon 

Scenic Byway (U-96), Flaming Gorge-Uintas National 

Scenic Byway, Indian Canyon Scenic Byway, Indian Creek 

Corridor Scenic Byway, Nine Mile Canyon Backway, Scenic 

Byway 12, and The Energy Loop: Huntington/Eccles 

Canyons Scenic Byway. 

 

Canyonlands, and Capitol Reef National Parks; Glen Canyon 

National Recreation Area; Grand Staircase-Escalante 

National Monument; Lower Green River Wild & Scenic 

River; and Ouray National Wildlife Refuge. 

Canyonlands and Capitol Reef National Parks, Dark Canyon 

Wilderness, Glen Canyon National Recreation Area, 

Dinosaur, Grand Staircase-Escalante, and Natural Bridges 

National Monuments; Lower Green River Wild & Scenic 

River; and Ouray National Wildlife Refuge. 

 

Old Spanish National Historic Trail Quarry Visitor Center National Historic Landmark and Old 

Spanish Trail National Historic Trail. 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-405 

(O’Rourke et al. 2012), nearly 78,618 acres of the STSA Alternative 2 area have been identified 

as having a medium or high sensitivity for containing cultural resources.29

 Impacts on cultural resources within these areas would be considered if leasing and future 

commercial development occur. Leasing itself has the potential to impact cultural resources to 

the extent that the terms of the lease limit an agency’s ability to avoid, minimize, or mitigate 

adverse effects of proposed development on cultural properties. Impacts from future 

development could include the destruction of individual resources present within development 

areas, degradation and/or destruction of near-surface resources in or near the development 

area, increased potential of loss of resource from looting or vandalism as a result of increased 

human presence and activity in the sensitive areas, and visual degradation of the cultural setting 

(see Section 6.2.2.8). Any future leasing and development would be subject to compliance with 

Section 106 of the NHPA as well as all other pertinent laws, regulations, and policies. 

Compliance with these laws would result in measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate impacts, or 

to denial of the lease or project. The cultural resources in the Circle Cliffs STSA would not be 

impacted by tar sands leasing and development because no leasing and development would occur 

in this STSA. The cultural resources in the Argyle Canyon, Hill Creek, Pariette, Raven Ridge, 

San Rafael, Tar Sand Triangle, and White Canyon STSAs are less likely to be impacted by tar 

sands leasing and development than those resources present in the Asphalt Ridge, P.R. Spring, 

and Sunnyside STSAs. 

6.2.2.10 Indian Tribal Concerns 

 Four land use plans would be amended under Alternative 2. Under Alternative 2 

(Conservation Focus), 129,567 acres of public land, less than a quarter of that available under 

Alternative 1, is identified as available for application for commercial tar sands leasing. The 

amendment of land use plans would not directly impact resources important to Native 

Americans. However, resources of concern to Native Americans in these areas could be 

adversely impacted if leasing and future development occur. Potential impacts would be similar 

to those discussed for Alternative 1, but over a smaller area. Additional lands excluded from 

application for leasing include all the Argyle Canyon and Asphalt Ridge STSAs and portions of 

the remaining STSAs. (The Circle Cliffs STSA is excluded from all alternatives because it lies 

within lands administered by the National Park Service not by the BLM.) The Ute Indian Tribe 

of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation has confirmed the presence of unspecified culturally 

important areas in the Hill Creek Extension split estate area of their reservation that would be 

available under this alternative, and requested that legally required government-to-government 

consultation take place as a part of any leasing and development of specific areas. Adverse 

effects on resources important to Native Americans would be reduced by implementation of 

legally required procedures in the amended management plans for cultural resources survey and 

 

29 The Argyle Canyon, Asphalt Ridge and Circle Cliffs STSAs and portions of the Raven Ridge, San Rafael, 

Sunnyside, Tar Sand Triangle, and White Canyon STSAs had not been surveyed sufficiently to derive sensitivity 

information; therefore, these acreages have not been included in this percentage calculation. Out of 

129,567 acres available under Alternative 2, sensitivity information is available for 125,475 acres (97%). 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-406 

by government-to-government consultations with the affected tribes. Project-specific NEPA 

analyses would be required that could result in lease stipulations specific to the parcels 

considered for lease resulting in avoidance and protection of the resources through changes in 

project design and development plans. 

6.2.2.11 Socioeconomics 

 Under Alternative 2, land use plans would be amended to identify 129,567 acres of land 

in Utah as available for application for commercial tar sands development. With the possible 

exception of an impact on property values, there is no socioeconomic impact of this action. 

Although the socioeconomic and transportation impacts of Alternative 2 would be dependent on 

the exact locations of future development, the types of impacts that could occur would be the 

same as those described in Section 5.12 and summarized in Section 6.2.1.11 for Alternative 1. 

The specific impacts would be dependent upon the technologies employed, the project size or 

production level, development time lines, mitigation measures, and the location of employee 

housing. 

 Under Alternative 2, it is possible that there would be property value impacts simply 

from designating land as available or not available for application for leasing; these impacts 

could result in either decreased or increased property values (see Section 4.11.1.6). 

6.2.2.12 Environmental Justice 

 Although the environmental justice impacts of Alternative 2 would be dependent on the 

exact locations of specific developments, the types of impacts that would occur on lands 

identified as remaining available for application for commercial leasing by the proposed land use 

plan amendments under Alternative 2 would be the same as those described in Section 5.13 and 

summarized in Section 6.2.1.12. 

6.2.2.13 Hazardous Materials and Waste Management 

 The amendment of land use plans under Alternative 2 to identify 129,567 acres of land as 

available for application for leasing for commercial tar sands development would not result in 

any hazardous material or waste management effects. Impacts related to hazardous materials and 

wastes, however, could occur during the future development of commercial tar sands projects 

within the areas identified in Alternative 2 as available for commercial leasing. Such impacts are 

generally independent of location and would be unique to the technology combinations used for 

tar sands development. Impacts from hazardous materials and wastes would also be associated 

with ancillary support activities that would be required for development of any tar sands facility 

regardless of the technology used. These include the impacts from development of energy 

transmission or pipeline ROWs and employer-provided housing. 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-407 

 Hazardous materials impacts associated with project construction would be minimal and 

limited to the hazardous materials typically utilized in construction, such as fuels, lubricating 

oils, hydraulic fluids, and glycol-based coolants, solvents, adhesives, and corrosion control 

coatings. Construction-related wastes could include landscape wastes from clearing and grading 

of the construction sites, and other wastes typically associated with construction, none of which 

is expected to be hazardous (Section 5.13.1). 

 During project operations, hazardous materials would be utilized and a variety of wastes 

(some hazardous) would be generated. Hazardous materials used include fuels, solvents, 

corrosion control coatings, flammable fuel gases, and herbicides (for vegetation clearing and 

management at facilities or along ROWs). The types and amounts of hazardous waste generated 

during operations would depend on the specific design of the commercial tar sands project 

(surface or subsurface mining, surface retorting, or in situ processes). Waste materials produced 

during operations could include waste engine fuels and lubricants, flammable gases, volatile and 

flammable organic liquids, and heavier-molecular-weight organic compounds (Section 5.13.1). 

 Because the use of hazardous materials and the generation of wastes are directly related 

to the specific design of a commercial tar sands project, it is not possible to quantify projectrelated impacts of these materials. Under Alternative 2, individual facilities could be located 

anywhere within the area identified as being available for leasing pending project review and 

authorization. Accidental releases of the hazardous materials or wastes could affect natural 

resources (such as water quality or wildlife) and human health and safety (see Sections 5.14 and 

6.2.2.14) at locations where the individual projects are sited within the Alternative 2 lease areas. 

6.2.2.14 Health and Safety 

 The amendment of land use plans to identify 129,567 acres of land as available for 

application for leasing for commercial tar sands development would not result in any direct 

health and safety effects. A number of health and safety concerns, however, would be associated 

with the commercial development of tar sands projects within the areas identified in 

Alternative 2 as available for application for commercial leasing. For commercial tar sands 

development in Alternative 2 proposed lease areas, potential health and safety impacts from the 

construction and operation of commercial tar sands projects would be associated with the 

following activities: (1) constructing project facilities and associated infrastructure; (2) mining 

(if processing is not in situ) the tar sands; (3) obtaining and upgrading the crude oil, either 

through surface retorting or in situ processing; (4) transporting construction and raw materials to 

the upgrading facility and transporting product from the facility; and (5) exposing the public to 

water and air contamination associated with tar sands development. Hazards from tar sands 

development (summarized in Table 5.14-1) could include physical injury from construction, tar 

sands processing, and vehicle transportation accidents, and exposure to fugitive dust and 

hazardous materials such as retort emissions and industrial chemicals (Section 5.14). Health and 

safety impacts would be largely restricted to the immediate workforce of each facility. Accidents 

could also affect members of the general public who could be present in the immediate vicinity 

of an accident (e.g., project-related truck accident on a public road, recreational users in areas 

adjacent to the project lease area). 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-408 

 Hazards for workers at tar sands development facilities include risks of accidental injuries 

or fatalities, lung disease caused by inhalation of particulates and other hazardous substances, 

and hearing loss. Estimates of expected injuries and fatalities can be made on the basis of 

numbers of employees and the type of work. On the basis of the number of employees projected 

to be needed for construction and operation of tar sands facilities, statistically there would be less 

than 1 death and about 100 injuries per year expected per facility during construction activities, 

and less than 1 death and about 30 injuries per year expected per facility during operations 

(NSC 2006). A comprehensive facility health and safety plan and worker safety training would 

be required as part of the plan of development for every proposed commercial tar sands project. 

 Health and safety concerns are largely independent of the location of tar sands 

development facilities. However, the health and safety impacts on the general public from 

emissions from these facilities would depend both on the specific characteristics and level of 

emissions and on the distance of the emissions source from population centers. The level of air 

and water emissions would be regulated under required permits. Potential impacts on the general 

public from emissions would be assessed in future site-specific NEPA and permitting 

documentation. 

6.2.3 Impacts of Alternative 3, Consideration only of a Pending Commercial Lease; 

Classification of the Public Lands for No Application for Tar Sands Leasing 

 Under Alternative 3, the BLM would amend the same four BLM Utah land use plans as 

in Alternative 2, but these amendments would be to close the public lands within the STSAs to 

application for tar sands leasing with the exception of the lands encompassed by a proposed 

2,100-acre lease in the Asphalt Ridge STSA near Vernal, Utah. See Sections 2.4.3 and 2.4.3.2 

for a complete description of Alternative 3. This alternative analyzes foregoing the leasing of tar 

sands entirely except for the lands encompassed by this proposed lease. 

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

environmental impact associated with making lands available for application for commercial 

leasing, but there may be impacts on land values. However, the development of a commercial tar 

sands project on the lands associated with the proposed lease located in the Asphalt Ridge STSA 

could have impacts on some resources on public, state, and private lands. The following sections 

describe the impacts of Alternative 3 on the environment and the socioeconomic setting. The 

sections also describe the potential impact of the proposed commercial development within the 

Asphalt Ridge STSA. This analysis does not constitute complete NEPA compliance for approval 

of the proposed 2,100-acre lease; NEPA compliance supporting that decision-making is being 

prepared separately from this PEIS. Rather, this analysis is provided both for itself, as well as 

primarily illustrative of the kinds of impacts that might be expected from this type of 

development, in order to inform the land use allocation decision. If the NEPA analysis of this 

proposed project is completed prior to preparation of the Final PEIS, salient points from that 

analysis will be included in the Final PEIS. 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-409 

6.2.3.1 Land Use 

 The amendment of four land use plans to close all public lands to future application for 

tar sands would not adversely affect existing land uses on these lands; in fact, current uses would 

not be subjected to potential impacts associated with tar sands development, apart from that 

which might occur on the basis of valid existing rights. Combined hydrocarbon leases (CHLs) 

issued in the mid-1980s on tar sands deposits have not been developed, and in the 2008 OSTS 

PEIS, it was anticipated that no development under the CHL program was likely to occur in the 

near future. Therefore, the classification of public lands to not allow future commercial 

application for the development of tar sands resources, subject to valid existing rights, will not 

have a significant impact on the human environment. Under this alternative, there is the 

possibility of limited development, in the event the pending commercial lease is issued, or a 

future lease is issued on these 2,123 acres; 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. 

 This alternative does include the consideration of the development of 2,123 acres of 

public lands within a larger development proposal within the Asphalt Ridge STSA. Although the 

acreage under consideration is much smaller than that in any of the other alternatives, some of 

the potential impacts on land use could be the same as those identified for Alternative 1, 

although at a much smaller scale and with the following exceptions. 

• There are no areas within the area under application for commercial tar sands 

development that have been identified as possessing characteristics of 

wilderness or that have been identified as potential ACECs. 

6.2.3.2 Soil and Geologic Resources 

 Under Alternative 3, land use plans would be amended to designate about 2,100 acres in 

the Asphalt Ridge STSA in Utah as available for commercial tar sands leasing (Section 2.4.3.2). 

The amendment of land use plans to identify this area would not have any direct impacts on soil 

and geologic resources in these lands. Development of commercial tar sands projects could, 

however, affect soils and geologic resources in these lands. 

 Construction-related activities could directly disturb surface and subsurface soils during 

clearing and grading activities and construction of project facilities and infrastructure. This 

disturbance could include soil disturbance, removal, and compaction, and disturbed areas would 

be more susceptible to the effects of precipitation and wind-driven erosion (see Section 5.3.1). 

Surface and subsurface mining activities during project operations would directly disturb 

geologic resources. Erosion of exposed soils could lead to increased sedimentation of nearby 

water bodies and to the generation of fugitive dust. Soils in project areas would remain 

susceptible to erosion until completion of construction, mining, and tar sands processing 

activities, and site stabilization and reclamation (e.g., revegetation of pipeline ROWs and surface 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-410 

mine reclamation). Impacts on soil and geologic resources would be limited to the specific 

project location as well as to areas where associated off-lease infrastructure (e.g., access roads 

and utility ROWs) would be located. 

 Under Alternative 3, project-related impacts could occur wherever individual projects are 

located within the 2,100 acres identified for application for leasing under this alternative. For any 

project, the erosion potential of the soils would be a direct function of the lease and project 

location and of the soil characteristics, vegetative cover, and topography (i.e., slope) at that 

location. Development in areas that have erosive soils and steep slopes (e.g., in excess of 25%) 

could lead to serious erosion problems at those locations. 

 No wild horse and burro HMAs in Utah overlap the lands that would be available for 

application for tar sands leasing under Alternative 3 (Figure 6.2.3-1). 

6.2.3.3 Paleontological Resources 

 Under Alternative 3, land use plans would be amended to designate about 2,100 acres in 

the Asphalt Ridge STSA in Utah for commercial tar sands leasing (Section 2.4.3.2). The 

designation of leasing areas, as well as the amendment of land use plans to incorporate this area, 

would not affect paleontological resources because these actions do not authorize or approve any 

ground-disturbing activities. Paleontological resources within these areas, however, could be 

adversely affected if leasing and subsequent commercial development occur. Of the acreage 

identified as available for application for leasing under Alternative 3, a total of 1,458 acres 

(approximately 69% of the 2,100 acres that would be available under Alternative 3) has been 

identified as overlying geologic formations having the potential to contain important 

paleontological resources (Murphey and Daitch 2007). 

 Impacts from tar sands development 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 

areas, 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. These impacts and the 

application of mitigation measures to reduce or eliminate them are discussed in Section 5.4. 

6.2.3.4 Water Resources 

 The acreage available for application for leasing under Alternative 3 is limited to about 

2,100 acres at the Asphalt Ridge STSA. Nevertheless, there is a potential for indirect adverse 

impacts on water resources, as described in Section 5.5. In those areas available for application 

for leasing under Alternative 3, the nature of potential impacts would be the same as those 

described for Alternative 1 in Section 6.2.1.4; however, under Alternative 3, no perennial stream 

miles are present that could be impacted by future commercial development. 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-411 

FIGURE 6.2.3-1 Locations of Lands Available for Tar Sands Leasing under Alternative 3 in 

Relation to Wild Horse and Burro Herd Management Areas 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-412 

 Although the regional impacts on water resources under Alternative 3 would be much 

smaller than those of the other alternatives, the assessment of impacts on water resources under 

Alternative 3 has the same limitations identified under Alternative 1. Without site-specific 

information on the location and type of technology to be employed, it is not possible to assess the 

overall impacts of this alternative. 

6.2.3.5 Air Quality 

 Under Alternative 3, land use plans would be amended to designate about 2,100 acres in 

the Asphalt Ridge STSA in Utah as available for commercial tar sands leasing (Section 2.4.3.2). 

Air resources would not be affected by this action. Under Alternative 3, local, short-term, air 

quality impacts may be incurred as a result of (1) PM releases (fugitive dust and diesel exhaust) 

during construction activities such as site clearing and grading in preparation of facility 

construction and (2) exhaust emissions (NOx, CO, PM, VOC, and SO2) from construction 

equipment and vehicles (see Section 5.6). These types of impacts would be of short duration and 

largely limited to specific project locations and immediately adjacent areas, as well as to other 

areas where project-related electric transmission lines, oil pipelines, transportation ROWs, and 

other infrastructure would be located and developed. 

 Similar but longer term impacts on local air quality could occur during normal project 

operations such as mining and processing of the tar sands. Processing activities could also result 

in regional impacts on air quality and AQRVs, such as visibility and acid deposition, that could 

extend beyond the lease areas identified under Alternative 2. These regional impacts would be 

associated with operational releases of NOx, CO, PM, and other pollutants (VOCs and SO2) 

during tar sands processing (Section 5.6). In addition, ozone precursors of NOx and VOC from 

tar sands development could exacerbate wintertime high-ozone occurrences already prevalent in 

the study area, especially in Uintah County. Operational releases of HAPs (such as benzene, 

toluene, and formaldehyde) as well as diesel PM could also affect workers and nearby 

residences; these impacts, however, would be localized to the immediate project location. 

 During all phases of tar sands development, GHG emissions of primarily CO2 and lesser 

amounts of CH4 and N2O from combustions sources could contribute to climate change to some 

extent. 

6.2.3.6 Noise 

 Under Alternative 3, land use plans would be amended to designate about 2,100 acres of 

public land as available for commercial tar sands leasing (Section 2.4.3.2); all other areas 

identified as available in the 2008 OSTS ROD would be excluded. Ambient noise levels in 

potential lease areas would not be affected by this action. Ambient noise levels could be affected, 

however, by subsequent commercial development of tar sands. Under Alternative 3, local, shortterm changes in ambient noise levels could occur during the construction, operation, and 

reclamation of tar sands projects (see Section 5.7.1). Project-related increases in noise levels 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-413 

could disturb or displace wildlife and recreational users in nearby areas. Impacts on wildlife and 

recreational users are discussed in Sections 5.8.1.3 and 5.2.1.4, respectively. 

 Increased noise levels could result from the operation of construction equipment (graders, 

excavators, and haul trucks) and from blasting activities. Increases in noise levels during 

operations would be associated with mining and tar sands processing activities and would be 

more long-term than construction-related noise. These types of impacts would be largely limited 

to specific project locations and the immediate surrounding area. Similar short- and long-term 

impacts could also occur in other areas where electric transmission lines, oil pipelines, 

transportation ROWs, and other infrastructure would be located, developed, and operated. For 

example, ambient noise levels could also be increased in the immediate vicinity of any pipeline 

pump station and could also be affected by project-related vehicular traffic at the project site and 

related locations such as access roads to the site. 

 Construction-related noise levels could exceed EPA guidelines. Similarly, operational 

noise associated with mining and retort activities could, in the absence of mitigation, exceed 

EPA guidelines at some project locations or at nearby sensitive receptors. Noise generated as a 

result of project-related vehicular traffic is not expected to exceed EPA guideline levels except 

for short durations and very close to road or high traffic areas. 

 In the absence of lease- and project-specific information, it is not possible at the level of 

this PEIS to identify the duration and magnitude of any project-related changes in noise levels. 

Changes to ambient noise levels from project development could occur wherever a project is 

located within the 2,100 acres identified for application for leasing under Alternative 3. 

6.2.3.7 Ecological Resources 

 Under Alternative 3, only 2,100 acres of public land would be made available within the 

pending Asphalt Ridge lease application area for application for commercial development of tar 

sands. This area supports a variety of biota and their habitats (Section 3.7). Ecological resources 

in this area would not be affected by the identification of future lands available for application 

for leasing or by amendment of land use plans to incorporate these lease areas. Ecological 

resources in and around the area, however, could be affected by future commercial development 

of tar sands in the area. The following sections describe the potential impacts on ecological 

resources that may result from commercial tar sands development within the area identified as 

available for application for commercial leasing under Alternative 3. 

 The magnitude of the impact on specific ecological resources that could be affected by 

commercial tar sands development in areas identified as available for application for commercial 

leasing in Alternative 3 would depend on the specific location of commercial tar sands projects 

as well as on specific project design. 

6.2.3.7.1 Aquatic Resources. Under Alternative 3, approximately 2,100 acres of land 

within the Asphalt Ridge STSA would be made available for application for leasing for 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-414 

commercial tar sands development. Within the area available for leasing, or within the additional 

2-mi zone surrounding these areas, there are no perennial streams that are directly overlain by 

areas that would be potentially available for tar sands development. Therefore, there are no direct 

impacts on aquatic habitats associated with this land use designation. As described in 

Section 5.1.1.1, impacts from water quality degradation and water depletions could affect 

resources in areas not only within or immediately adjacent to leased areas but also farther 

downstream in affected watersheds. The nature and magnitude of impacts, as well as the specific 

resources affected, would depend on the location of the areas where project construction and 

facilities occur, the aquatic resources present in those areas, and the mitigation measures 

implemented. 

 The types of aquatic habitats and organisms that could be impacted by future 

development in the vicinity of the STSAs are described in Section 3.7.1.2, and some of these 

aquatic habitats are known to, or are likely to, contain federally listed endangered fish, statelisted or BLM-designated sensitive species (Section 3.7.4), and other native fish and invertebrate 

species that could be negatively affected by development. Specific impacts would depend greatly 

upon the locations and methods of extraction used by future projects. Project-specific NEPA 

analyses would be conducted prior to any future leasing decisions to evaluate potential impacts 

in greater detail. 

6.2.3.7.2 Plant Communities and Habitats. Under Alternative 3, approximately 

2,100 acres of land are included in a pending tar sands lease application in Utah and would be 

identified as available for tar sands leasing and development. There are no impacts on plant 

communities and habitats associated with this land use designation. Impacts could result, 

however, from post-lease construction and operation as described in Section 5.8.1.2. These 

impacts would be considered in greater detail in project-specific NEPA analyses that would be 

conducted at the commercial lease and development phases of projects. 

 The project is located in the Asphalt Ridge STSA, which supports a variety of plant 

communities and habitats (see Section 3.7.2.4). The potential lease area does not contain any 

land designated in BLM land use plans for the protection of riparian habitats, floodplains, or 

special status plant species. Pinyon-juniper shrubland covers approximately half of the pending 

lease area (USGS 2004d). Big sagebrush shrubland and mixed low sagebrush shrubland also 

cover large areas of the site. Direct and indirect impacts could be incurred during project 

construction and operation, extending over several decades (especially within facility and 

infrastructure footprints) (see Section 5.8.1.2). Some impacts, such as habitat loss, could 

continue beyond the termination of tar sands production. 

 Direct impacts could include the destruction of vegetation and habitat during land 

clearing on the lease site and where ancillary facilities such as access roads, pipelines, 

transmission lines, employer-provided housing, and new power plants would be located. Soils 

disturbed during construction would be susceptible to the introduction and establishment of 

non-native invasive species, which in turn could greatly reduce the success of establishment of 

native plant communities during reclamation of project areas and create a source of future 

colonization and subsequent degradation of adjacent undisturbed areas. Plant communities and 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-415 

habitats could also be adversely affected by changes in water quality or availability, resulting in 

plant mortality or reduced growth, with subsequent changes in community composition and 

structure and declines in habitat quality. Indirect impacts on terrestrial and wetland habitats on or 

off the project site could result from land clearing and exposed soil; soil compaction; and 

changes in topography, surface drainage, and infiltration characteristics. These impacts could 

lead to changes in the abundance and distribution of plant species and changes in community 

structure, as well as the introduction or spread of invasive species. 

 Affected plant communities and habitats could incur short- and/or long-term changes in 

species composition, abundance, and distribution. While many impacts would be local, 

(occurring within the construction and operation footprints and in the immediate surrounding 

area), the introduction of invasive species could affect much larger areas. The nature and 

magnitude of these impacts, as well as the communities or habitats affected, would depend on 

the location of the areas where project construction occurs and where facilities are located, the 

plant communities and habitats present in those areas, and the mitigation measures implemented 

to address impacts. 

 No ACECs are included within the Alternative 3 footprint. The nearest ACEC, the Red 

Mountain–Dry Fork Complex, which supports relict vegetation communities, is located more 

than 5 mi from the pending lease boundary. No direct or indirect impacts would be expected to 

occur to habitats within the ACEC. 

6.2.3.7.3 Wildlife. Under Alternative 3, only 2,100 acres of land in the Asphalt Ridge 

STSA would be available for application for leasing. Impacts on wildlife could occur from postlease construction and operations as described in Section 5.8.1.3. The areas identified for leasing 

support a diverse array of wildlife and habitats (see Section 3.7.3). Various stipulations are 

included in the BLM RMPs that provide protection for various wildlife species. These 

stipulations include lands designated as (1) NSO (where the BLM does not allow long-term 

ground-disturbing activities [i.e., with an impact that would last longer than 2 years]), (2) CSU 

(where the BLM places special restrictions, including shifting a ground-disturbing activity by 

more than 200 m from the proposed location to another location to protect a specific resource 

such as a raptor nest), and (3) TL (where the BLM may allow specified activities but not during 

certain sensitive seasons, such as when raptors are nesting or when big game are on their winter 

ranges). The only wildlife-related stipulation in areas available for application for tar sands 

leasing in Alternative 3 that are not associated with special status species is the TL for 41 acres 

of mule deer fawning habitat in Asphalt Ridge. 

 The Alternative 3 area identified as available for tar sands leasing overlaps or occurs 

close to areas identified by state natural resource agencies as seasonal habitat for big game 

species. These areas include mule deer and elk winter and summer ranges (Figures 6.2.3-2 and 

6.2.3-3, respectively). The Alternative 3 tar sands lease area overlaps with 1,729 acres of mule 

deer winter habitat. 

 Impacts on wildlife from commercial tar sands projects (see Section 5.8.1.3) could occur 

in a number of ways and would be related to (1) habitat loss, alteration, or fragmentation; 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-416 

FIGURE 6.2.3-2 Locations of Lands Available for Tar Sands Leasing under Alternative 3 in 

Relation to the Summer and Winter Ranges of the Mule Deer 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-417 

FIGURE 6.2.3-3 Locations of Lands Available for Tar Sands Leasing under Alternative 3 in 

Relation to Summer and Winter Ranges of the Elk 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-418 

(2) disturbance and displacement of biota; (3) mortality; (4) exposure to hazardous materials; and 

(5) increase in human access. These impacts can result in changes in species distribution and 

abundance; habitat use; changes in behavior; collisions with structures or vehicles; changes in 

predator populations; and chronic or acute toxicity from hydrocarbons, herbicides, or other 

contaminant exposures. 

 Wildlife could also be affected by human activities not directly associated with a tar 

sands project or its workforce, but instead associated with the potentially increased human access 

to BLM-administered lands that had previously received little use. The construction of new 

access roads or improvements to old access roads may lead to increased human access into the 

area. Potential impacts associated with increased access include (1) the disturbance of wildlife 

from human activities, including an increase in legal and illegal take and an increase of invasive 

vegetation, (2) an increase in the incidence of fires, and (3) increased runoff that could adversely 

affect riparian or other wetland areas that are important to wildlife. 

6.2.3.7.4 Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species. Under Alternative 3, the 

lands encompassed by the pending Asphalt Ridge STSA lease application (south of Vernal, 

Utah) would be identified as available for application for commercial leasing for tar sands. 

A summary of this alternative is provided in Table 2.4.2-2. There would be no impacts on 

threatened and endangered species associated with identifying lands as available for application 

for commercial leasing. Impacts could result, however, from post-lease construction and 

operation as described in Section 5.8.1.4. These impacts would be considered in project-specific 

NEPA analyses that would be conducted at the commercial lease and development phases of 

projects. In addition, the BLM’s approval of any projects would be subject to compliance with 

the ESA, and those policies provided under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Various stipulations are included in the BLM RMPs that provide 

protection for different threatened, endangered, and sensitive species. These include lands 

designated as (1) NSO (where the BLM does not allow long-term ground-disturbing activities 

[i.e., with an impact that would last longer than 2 years]), (2) CSU, and (3) TL. According to 

these RMPs, stipulations are provided for the protection of approximately 1,638 acres of habitat 

for the sage-grouse under Alternative 3. 

 Under Alternative 3, 36 of the 55 federal candidate, BLM-designated sensitive, and statelisted species listed in Table 6.2.3-1 and 8 of the 15 federally listed threatened or endangered 

species listed in Table 6.2.3-2 could occur in or near the lands encompassed by the pending tar 

sands lease. This determination is based on records of occurrence in project counties in Utah, 

species occurrences from state natural heritage programs,30 and the presence of potentially 

 

 

30 Spatial data were obtained from state natural heritage program or conservation offices that represented USGS 

quad-level or township range-level occurrences of species (CNHP 2011; UDWR 2011; WYNDD 2011a). A 

spatial analysis was performed to determine the distance of recorded occurrences of each species to the pending 

lease areas. For species tracked in these state databases, these distance measurements are provided in 

Tables 6.2.3-1 and 6.2.3-2. 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-419 

TABLE 6.2.3-1 Potential Effects of Commercial Tar Sands Development under Alternative 3 on 

BLM-Designated Sensitive Species, Federal Candidates for Listing, State-Listed Species, and State 

Species of Special Concern 

Scientific Name Common Name Statusa

Utah Counties within the 

Study Area in Which 

Species May Occur Potential for Effectb

 

Plants 

Amsonia jonesii Jones blue star BLM-S Duchesne, Emery, 

Garfield, Grand, San Juan, 

Uintah, Wayne 

No impact. Suitable habitat for this 

species is not known to occur in the 

vicinity of the STSAs. Nearest 

occurrences are approximately 75 mi 

from the pending tar sands lease area.

 

Aquilegia 

scopulorum var.

goodrichii 

Utah columbine BLM-S Carbon, Duchesne, 

Emery, Grand, Uintah 

Potential for negative impact.

Suitable habitat may occur in the 

study area.

 

Arabis vivariensis Park rockcress BLM-S Uintah Potential for negative impact.

Suitable habitat may occur in the 

study area.

 

Astragalus 

detritalis 

Debris milkvetch BLM-S Duchesne, Uintah No impact. Suitable habitat for this 

species is not known to occur in the 

vicinity of the STSAs. Nearest 

occurrences are approximately 30 mi 

from the pending tar sands lease area.

 

Astragalus 

duchesnensis 

Duchesne milkvetch BLM-S Duchesne, Uintah No impact. Suitable habitat for this 

species is not known to occur in the 

vicinity of the STSAs. Nearest 

occurrences are approximately 30 mi 

from the pending tar sands lease area.

 

Astragalus 

equisolensis 

Horseshoe 

milkvetch 

BLM-S Uintah Potential for negative impact.

Suitable habitat may occur in the 

study area.

 

Astragalus 

hamiltonii 

Hamilton’s 

milkvetch 

BLM-S Uintah Potential for negative impact.

Suitable habitat may occur in the 

study area.

 

Astragalus 

musiniensis 

Ferron milkvetch BLM-S Emery, Garfield, Grand, 

Wayne 

No impact. Suitable habitat for this 

species is not known to occur in the 

vicinity of the STSAs. Nearest 

occurrences are approximately 70 mi 

from the pending tar sands lease area.

 

Cirsium ownbeyi Ownbey’s thistle BLM-S Uintah No impact. Suitable habitat for this 

species is not known to occur in the 

vicinity of the STSAs. Nearest 

occurrences are approximately 50 mi 

from the pending tar sands lease area.

 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-420 

TABLE 6.2.3-1 (Cont.) 

Scientific Name Common Name Statusa

Utah Counties within the 

Study Area in Which 

Species May Occur Potential for Effectb

 

Plants (Cont.) 

Cleomella 

palmeriana var. 

goodrichii 

Goodrich cleomella BLM-S Uintah Potential for negative impact.

Suitable habitat may occur in the 

study area.

 

Cryptantha 

barnebyi 

Barneby’s cat’s-eye BLM-S Uintah Potential for negative impact.

Suitable habitat may occur in the 

study area.

 

Cryptantha 

caespitosa 

Caespitose cat’s-eye BLM-S Carbon, Duchesne, Uintah No impact. Suitable habitat for this 

species is not known to occur in the 

vicinity of the STSAs. Nearest 

occurrences are approximately 30 mi 

from the pending tar sands lease area.

 

Cryptantha 

grahamii 

Graham’s cat’s-eye BLM-S Uintah Potential for negative impact.

Suitable habitat may occur in the 

study area.

 

Cryptantha 

rollinsii 

Rollins’ cat’s eye BLM-S Duchesne, San Raphael, 

Uintah, Wayne 

No impact. Suitable habitat for this 

species is not known to occur in the 

vicinity of the STSAs. Nearest 

occurrences are approximately 30 mi 

from the pending tar sands lease area.

 

Cymopterus 

duchesnensis 

Uinta Basin springparsley BLM-S Duchesne, Uintah No impact. Suitable habitat for this 

species is not known to occur in the 

vicinity of the STSAs. Nearest 

occurrences are approximately 30 mi 

from the pending tar sands lease area.

 

Eriogonum 

contortum 

Grand buckwheat BLM-S Grand No impact. Suitable habitat for this 

species is not known to occur in the 

vicinity of the STSAs. Nearest 

occurrences are approximately 70 mi 

from the pending tar sands lease area.

 

Eriogonum 

ephedroides 

Ephedra buckwheat BLM-S Uintah No impact. Suitable habitat for this 

species is not known to occur in the 

vicinity of the STSAs. Nearest 

occurrences are approximately 30 mi 

from the pending tar sands lease area.

 

Frasera 

ackermanae

Ackerman frasera BLM-S Uintah Potential for negative impact.

Suitable habitat may occur in the 

study area.

 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-421 

TABLE 6.2.3-1 (Cont.) 

Scientific Name Common Name Statusa

Utah Counties within the 

Study Area in Which 

Species May Occur Potential for Effectb

 

Plants (Cont.) 

Gilia stenothyrsa Narrow-stem gilia BLM-S Carbon, Duchesne, 

Emery, Uintah 

No impact. Suitable habitat for this 

species is not known to occur in the 

vicinity of the STSAs. Nearest 

occurrences are approximately 40 mi 

from the pending tar sands lease area.

 

Hymenoxys 

lapidicola 

Rock hymenoxys BLM-S Uintah Potential for negative impact.

Suitable habitat may occur in the 

study area.

 

Lepidium huberi Huber’s pepperplant BLM-S Uintah Potential for negative impact.

Suitable habitat may occur in the 

study area.

 

Mentzelia 

goodrichii 

Goodrich’s 

blazingstar 

BLM-S Duchesne, Uintah Potential for negative impact.

Suitable habitat may occur in the 

study area.

 

Penstemon 

scariosus var. 

albifluvis 

White River 

beardtongue 

ESA-C Uintah No impact. Suitable habitat for this 

species is not known to occur in the 

vicinity of the STSAs. Nearest 

occurrences are approximately 30 mi 

from the pending tar sands lease area.

 

Phacelia 

argylensis 

Argyle Canyon 

phacelia 

BLM-S Uintah Potential for negative impact.

Suitable habitat may occur in the 

study area.

 

Townsendia 

strigosa 

Strigose Easterdaisy BLM-S Duchesne, Uintah Potential for negative impact. 

Suitable habitat may occur in the 

STSAs.

 

Yucca sterilis Spanish bayonet BLM-S Uintah Potential for negative impact.

Suitable habitat may occur in the 

study area.

 

Invertebrates 

Speyeria nokomis 

nokomis 

Great Basin 

silverspot butterfly 

BLM-S Duchesne, Uintah Potential for negative impact. 

Suitable habitat may occur in the 

STSAs.

 

Fish 

Catostomus 

discobolus 

Bluehead sucker BLM-S Carbon, Duchesne, 

Emery, Garfield, Grand, 

San Juan, Uintah 

Potential for negative impact. 

Suitable habitat may occur near the 

STSAs. Quad-level occurrences of 

this species intersect the pending tar 

sands lease area.

 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-422 

TABLE 6.2.3-1 (Cont.) 

Scientific Name Common Name Statusa

Utah Counties within the 

Study Area in Which 

Species May Occur Potential for Effectb

 

Fish (Cont.) 

Catostomus 

latipinnis 

Flannelmouth 

sucker

BLM-S Carbon, Duchesne, 

Emery, Garfield, Grand, 

San Juan, Uintah; Wayne 

Potential for negative impact. 

Suitable habitat may occur near the 

STSAs. Quad-level occurrences of 

this species intersect the pending tar 

sands lease area.

 

Catostomus 

platyrhynchus 

Mountain sucker BLM-S Carbon, Duchesne, 

Emery, Grand, Uintah 

Potential for negative impact. 

Suitable habitat may occur in the 

STSAs.

 

Gila robusta Roundtail chub BLM-S Carbon, Duchesne, 

Emery, Garfield, Grand, 

San Juan, Uintah, Wayne 

Potential for negative impact. 

Suitable habitat may occur near the 

STSAs. Quad-level occurrences of 

this species intersect the STSAs.

 

Oncorhynchus 

clarkii pleuriticus 

Colorado River 

cutthroat trout

BLM-S Duchesne, Garfield, 

Uintah, Wayne

No impact. This species is not known 

to occur in the vicinity of the STSAs. 

Nearest occurrences are 

approximately 60 mi from the 

pending tar sands lease area.

 

Amphibians 

Rana pipiens Northern leopard 

frog 

BLM-S Carbon, Duchesne, 

Emery, Garfield, Grand, 

San Juan, Uintah, Wayne 

No impact. Suitable habitat for the 

species does not occur in the STSAs, 

and it is not known to occur in the 

vicinity of the STSAs. 

 

Spea intermontana Great basin 

spadefoot 

BLM-S Carbon, Duchesne, 

Emery, Garfield, Grand, 

San Juan, Uintah, Wayne 

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 2,149 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the STSAs. Nearest 

occurrences are approximately 40 mi 

from the pending tar sands lease area.

 

Reptiles 

Liochlorophis 

vernalis 

Smooth greensnake BLM-S; 

UT-SC 

Carbon, Duchesne, Grand, 

San Juan, Uintah 

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 726 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the pending tar 

sands lease areas. Quad-level 

occurrences of this species intersect 

the pending tar sands lease areas.

 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-423 

TABLE 6.2.3-1 (Cont.) 

Scientific Name Common Name Statusa

Utah Counties within the 

Study Area in Which 

Species May Occur Potential for Effectb

 

Birds 

Accipiter gentilis Northern goshawk BLM-S Carbon, Duchesne, 

Emery, Garfield, Grand, 

San Juan, Uintah, Wayne 

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 313 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the pending tar 

sands lease area. Quad-level 

occurrences of this species intersect 

the pending tar sands lease area.

 

Ammodramus 

savannarum 

Grasshopper 

sparrow 

UT-SC Duchesne, Uintah, Utah, 

Wasatch 

No impact. Suitable habitat for the 

species does not occur in the pending 

tar sands lease area.

 

Asio flammeus Short-eared owl BLM-S; 

UT-SC 

Carbon, Duchesne, 

Emery, Grand, Garfield, 

San Juan, Uintah, Wayne 

Potential for negative impact. 

Suitable habitat for the species may 

occur in the pending tar sands lease 

area. Quad-level occurrences of this 

species intersect the pending tar sands 

lease area.

 

Athene cunicularia Burrowing owl BLM-S; 

UT-SC 

Carbon, Duchesne, 

Emery, Garfield, Grand, 

San Juan, Uintah, Wayne 

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 2,064 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the pending tar 

sands lease area. Quad-level 

occurrences of this species intersect 

the pending tar sands lease area.

 

Buteo regalis Ferruginous hawk BLM-S; 

UT-SC 

Carbon, Duchesne, 

Emery, Garfield, Grand, 

San Juan, Uintah, Wayne 

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 1,110 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the pending tar 

sands lease area. Quad-level 

occurrences of this species intersect 

the pending tar sands lease area.

 

Centrocercus 

urophasianus 

Greater sage-grouse ESA-C; 

BLM-S; 

UT-SC 

Carbon, Duchesne, 

Emery, Garfield, Grand, 

San Juan, Uintah, Wayne

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 925 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the pending tar 

sands lease area. Quad-level 

occurrences of this species intersect 

the pending tar sands lease area.

 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-424 

TABLE 6.2.3-1 (Cont.) 

Scientific Name Common Name Statusa

Utah Counties within the 

Study Area in Which 

Species May Occur Potential for Effectb

 

Birds (Cont.) 

Coccyzus 

americanus 

occidentalis 

Western yellowbilled cuckoo ESA-C; 

BLM-S 

Duchesne, Garfield, 

Grand, San Juan, Uintah, 

Wayne 

Potential for negative impact. 

Suitable habitat for the species may 

occur in the pending tar sands lease 

area. Quad-level occurrences of this 

species intersect the pending tar sands 

lease area.

 

Cypseloides niger Black swift BLM-S; 

UT-SC 

Duchesne, Uintah No impact. Suitable habitat for the 

species does not occur in the project 

area and it is not known to occur in 

the vicinity of the STSAs. Nearest 

occurrences are approximately 

100 mi from the pending tar sands 

lease area.

 

Dolichonyx 

oryzivorus 

Bobolink BLM-S; 

UT-SC 

Carbon, Duchesne, 

Emery, Garfield, Grand, 

San Juan, Uintah, Wayne 

Potential for negative impact. 

Suitable habitat for the species may 

occur in the STSAs. Quad-level 

occurrences are within 5 mi from the 

pending tar sands lease area. 

 

Haliaeetus 

leucocephalus 

Bald eagle BLM-S Carbon, Duchesne, 

Emery, Garfield, Grand, 

San Juan, Uintah, Wayne 

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 1,295 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the STSAs. Quadlevel occurrences of this species 

intersect the pending tar sands lease 

area.

 

Melanerpes lewis Lewis’s woodpecker BLM-S; 

UT-SC 

Carbon, Duchesne, 

Emery, Garfield, Grand, 

San Juan, Uintah, Wayne

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 14 acres of potentially 

suitable habitat for this species occurs 

in the STSAs. Quad-level 

occurrences are within 5 mi from the 

pending tar sands lease area. 

 

Numenius 

americanus 

Long-billed curlew BLM-S; 

UT-SC 

Carbon, Duchesne, 

Emery, Garfield, Grand, 

San Juan, Uintah, Wayne 

Potential for negative impact. 

Suitable habitat may occur in the 

STSAs. Quad-level occurrences are 

within 5 mi from the pending tar 

sands lease area. 

 

Pelecanus 

erythrorhynchos 

American white 

pelican 

BLM-S; 

UT-SC 

Carbon, Duchesne, 

Emery, Garfield, Grand, 

San Juan, Uintah, Wayne 

Potential for negative impact. 

Suitable habitat for the species may 

occur in the STSAs. Quad-level 

occurrences are within 7 mi from the 

pending tar sands lease area. 

 

 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-425 

TABLE 6.2.3-1 (Cont.) 

Scientific Name Common Name Statusa

Utah Counties within the 

Study Area in Which 

Species May Occur Potential for Effectb

 

Birds (Cont.) 

Picoides 

tridactylus 

Three-toed 

woodpecker

BLM-S; 

UT-SC

Carbon, Duchesne, 

Emery, Garfield, Grand, 

San Juan, Uintah, Wayne 

No impact. Suitable habitat for the 

species does not occur in the pending 

tar sands lease area.

 

Mammals 

Corynorhinus 

townsendii 

pallescens 

Townsend’s bigeared bat 

BLM-S; 

UT-SC 

Carbon, Duchesne, 

Emery, Garfield, Grand, 

San Juan, Uintah, Wayne 

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 1,907 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the STSAs. Quadlevel occurrences are within 10 mi 

from the pending tar sands lease area. 

 

Cynomys leucurus White-tailed prairie 

dog 

BLM-S; 

UT-SC 

Carbon, Duchesne, 

Emery, Grand, Uintah 

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 954 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the STSAs. Quadlevel occurrences of this species 

intersect the pending tar sands lease 

area.

 

Euderma 

maculatum 

Spotted bat BLM-S; 

UT-SC 

Duchesne, Garfield, 

Grand, San Juan, Uintah, 

Wayne 

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 1,893 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the STSAs. Quadlevel occurrences are within 10 mi 

from the pending tar sands lease area. 

 

Lasiurus 

blossevillii 

Western red bat BLM-S; 

UT-SC 

Carbon, Emery, Grand, 

Garfield, San Juan, Wayne 

No impact. Suitable habitat for the 

species does not occur in the STSAs.

 

Myotis thysanodes Fringed myotis BLM-S; 

UT-SC 

Duchesne, Garfield, 

Grand, San Juan, Uintah, 

Wayne 

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 1,993 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the STSAs. Nearest 

occurrences are approximately 20 mi 

from the pending tar sands lease area.

 

Nyctinomops 

macrotis 

Big free-tailed bat BLM-S; 

UT-SC 

Carbon, Duchesne, 

Emery, Garfield, Grand, 

San Juan, Uintah, Wayne 

No impact. Suitable habitat for the 

species does not occur in the STSAs 

and it is not known to occur in the 

vicinity of the STSAs. Nearest 

occurrences are approximately 50 mi 

from the pending tar sands lease area.

 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-426 

TABLE 6.2.3-1 (Cont.) 

Scientific Name Common Name Statusa

Utah Counties within the 

Study Area in Which 

Species May Occur Potential for Effectb

 

Mammals (Cont.) 

Vulpes macrotis Kit fox BLM-S; 

UT-SC 

Carbon, Duchesne, 

Emery, Garfield, Grand, 

San Juan, Uintah, Wayne 

Potential for negative impact. 

Suitable habitat for the species may 

occur in the STSAs. Quad-level 

occurrences are within 5 mi from the 

pending tar sands lease area. 

a Status categories: BLM-S = listed by the BLM as sensitive; ESA-C = candidate for listing under the ESA; 

UT-SC = species of special concern in the state of Utah. 

b Potential impacts are based upon the presence of potentially suitable habitat or recorded occurrences in the vicinity of the 

STSAs. Recorded occurrences were obtained as USGS quad-level or township range-level element occurrence records 

from state natural heritage program offices (CNHP 2011; UDWR 2011). If available for terrestrial vertebrates, SWReGAP 

animal habitat suitability models (USGS 2007) were used to determine the presence of potentially suitable habitat in the 

STSAs. 

suitable habitat.31 Under this alternative, there are no critical habitats for species listed under the 

ESA in the pending tar sands lease areas. However, critical habitat for Colorado River 

endangered fishes occurs within 5 mi from the pending tar sands lease areas (Figure 6.2.3-4). 

Areas including greater sage-grouse habitat are shown in Figure 6.2.3-5. The entire pending 

Asphalt Ridge STSA lease area (approximately 2,100 acres) is located in core habitat for the 

greater sage-grouse.32 

 The potential impacts on threatened, endangered, and sensitive species (and their 

habitats) by commercial tar sands development are directly related to the amount of land 

disturbance that could occur with a commercial project (including ancillary facilities such as 

power plants and utility and pipeline ROWs), the duration and timing of construction and 

operation periods, and the habitats affected by development (i.e., the location of the project). 

Indirect effects, such as impacts resulting from the erosion of disturbed land surfaces, surface 

water or groundwater depletions, contamination, and disturbance and harassment of animal 

species, would be proportional to the amount of land disturbance. 

 Potential impacts on threatened, endangered, and sensitive species under Alternative 3 

are similar to or the same as impacts on aquatic resources, plant communities and habitats, and 

 

31 Spatial models representing potentially suitable habitat of terrestrial vertebrate wildlife species were obtained 

from USGS (2007) and WYNDD (2011b). For species with an available habitat model, a spatial analysis was 

performed to quantify the amount of potentially suitable habitat within the pending lease areas. This 

quantification is presented in Tables 6.2.3-1 and 6.2.3-2. 

32 Data and habitats considered as core or priority greater sage-grouse habitat for this PEIS are discussed in a text 

box in Section 3.7.4.3.1. 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-427 

TABLE 6.2.3-2 Potential Effects of Commercial Tar Sands Development under Alternative 3 on 

Federally Listed Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Species 

Scientific Name Common Name Statusa

Utah Counties in the 

Study Area in Which 

Species May Occur Potential for Effectb

 

Plants 

Cycladenia 

humilis var. jonesii 

Jones cycladenia ESA-T Emery, Garfield, Grand, 

Uintah 

Potential for negative impact. 

Suitable habitat may occur in the 

pending tar sands lease area.

 

Penstemon 

grahamii 

Graham’s 

beardtongue 

ESA-PT; 

BLM-S 

Duchesne, Uintah No impact. Suitable habitat for this 

species is not known to occur in the 

vicinity of the STSAs. Nearest 

occurrences are approximately 

30 mi from the pending tar sands 

lease area.

 

Schoenocrambe 

argillacea 

Clay reedmustardESA-T Uintah No impact. Suitable habitat for this 

species is not known to occur in the 

vicinity of the STSAs. Nearest 

occurrences are approximately 

30 mi from the pending tar sands 

lease area.

 

Schoenocrambe 

suffrutescens 

Shrubby reedmustard ESA-E Duchesne, Uintah No impact. Suitable habitat for this 

species is not known to occur in the 

vicinity of the STSAs. Nearest 

occurrences are approximately 

30 mi from the pending tar sands 

lease area.

 

Sclerocactus 

brevispinus 

Pariette cactus ESA-T Duchesne, Uintah No impact. Suitable habitat for this 

species is not known to occur in the 

vicinity of the STSAs. Nearest 

occurrences are approximately 

20 mi from the pending tar sands 

lease area.

 

Sclerocactus 

wetlandicus 

Uinta Basin 

hookless cactus

ESA-T Carbon, Duchesne, Uintah Potential for negative impact. 

Suitable habitat may occur in the 

STSAs. Quad-level occurrences of 

this species are approximately 5 mi 

south of the pending tar sands lease 

area.

 

Spiranthes 

diluvialis 

Ute ladies’-

tresses 

ESA-T Duchesne, Garfield, 

Uintah, Wayne 

Potential for negative impact. 

Suitable habitat may occur in the 

STSAs. Quad-level occurrences of 

this species intersect the pending tar 

sands lease area.

 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-428 

TABLE 6.2.3-2 (Cont.)

Scientific Name Common Name Statusa

Utah Counties in the Study 

Area in Which Species 

May Occur Potential for Effectb

 

Fish 

Gila cypha Humpback chub ESA-E Carbon, Emery, Garfield, 

Grand, San Juan, Uintah, 

Wayne 

Potential for negative impact. 

Suitable habitat may occur near the 

pending tar sands lease area. 

Designated critical habitat occurs in 

the Green River within 5 mi from 

the project area. Nearest 

occurrences are approximately 

30 mi from the pending tar sands 

lease area.

 

Gila elegans Bonytail ESA-E Carbon, Duchesne, Emery, 

Garfield, Grand, San Juan, 

Uintah, Wayne 

Potential for negative impact. 

Suitable habitat may occur near the 

pending tar sands lease area. 

Designated critical habitat occurs in 

the Green River within 5 mi from 

the STSAs. Quad-level occurrences 

of this species intersect the pending 

tar sands lease area.

 

Ptychocheilus 

lucius 

Colorado 

pikeminnow 

ESA-E Carbon, Duchesne, Emery, 

Garfield, Grand, San Juan, 

Uintah, Wayne 

Potential for negative impact. 

Suitable habitat may occur near the 

pending tar sands lease area. 

Designated critical habitat occurs in 

the Green River within 5 mi from 

the STSAs. Quad-level occurrences 

of this species intersect the pending 

tar sands lease area.

 

Xyrauchen texanus Razorback 

sucker 

ESA-E Carbon, Emery Garfield, 

Grand, San Juan, Uintah, 

Wayne 

Potential for negative impact. 

Suitable habitat may occur near the 

pending tar sands lease area. 

Designated critical habitat occurs in 

the Green River within 5 mi from 

the STSAs. Quad-level occurrences 

of this species intersect the pending 

tar sands lease area.

 

Birds 

Empidonax traillii 

extimus 

Southwestern 

willow 

flycatcher 

ESA-E Carbon, Emery, Garfield, 

Grand, San Juan, Uintah, 

Wayne 

No impact. Suitable habitat for the 

species does not occur in the 

STSAs.

 

Strix occidentalis 

lucida 

Mexican spotted 

owl

ESA-T Emery, Garfield, Grand, 

San Juan, Uintah, Wayne 

No impact. Suitable habitat for the 

species does not occur in the 

STSAs. Designated critical habitat 

does not occur in the vicinity of the 

STSAs.

 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-429 

TABLE 6.2.3-2 (Cont.)

Scientific Name Common Name Statusa

Utah Counties in the Study 

Area in Which Species 

May Occur Potential for Effectb

 

Mammals 

Lynx canadensis Canada lynx ESA-T Emery, Uintah No impact. Suitable habitat for the 

species does not occur in the 

STSAs, and it is not known to occur 

in the vicinity of the STSAs. 

 

Mustela nigripes Black-footed 

ferret 

ESA-XN Carbon, Duchesne, Emery, 

Grand, San Juan, Uintah 

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 270 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the STSAs. Quadlevel occurrences of this species 

intersect the pending tar sands lease 

area.

a Status categories: BLM-S = listed by the BLM as sensitive; ESA-E = listed as endangered under the ESA; 

ESA-PT = proposed for listing as a threatened species under the ESA; ESA-T = listed as threatened under the ESA; 

ESA-XN = experimental, nonessential population. 

b Potential impacts are based upon the presence of potentially suitable habitat or recorded occurrences in the vicinity of the 

STSAs. Recorded occurrences were obtained as USGS quad-level or township range-level element occurrence records 

from state natural heritage program offices (CNHP 2011; UDWR 2011; WYNDD 2011a). If available for terrestrial 

vertebrates, SWReGAP animal habitat suitability models (USGS 2007) and terrestrial vertebrate distribution models for 

the state of Wyoming (WYNDD 2011b) were used to determine the presence of potentially suitable habitat in the STSAs. 

Spatial data for designated critical habitat were obtained from the USFWS Critical Habitat Portal (USFWS 2011).

wildlife described in Sections 6.2.3.7.1, 6.2.3.7.2, and 6.2.3.7.3, respectively. The most 

important difference is the potential consequence of the impacts. Because of their low population 

sizes, threatened and endangered species are far more vulnerable than more common and 

widespread species. Low population size makes them more vulnerable to the effects of habitat 

fragmentation, habitat alteration, habitat degradation, human disturbance and harassment, 

mortality of individuals, and the loss of genetic diversity. Specific impacts associated with 

development would depend on the locations of projects relative to species populations and the 

details of project development. These impacts would be evaluated in detail in project-specific 

assessments and consultations conducted prior to leasing and development. 

6.2.3.8 Visual Resources 

 Alternative 3 would identify only a single area for potential tar sands development. This 

area is defined by a lease application for a tar sands development covering about 2,100 acres in 

the Asphalt Ridge STSA in Utah. Scenic resources within this potential tar sands development 

area would not be affected by the amendment of land use plans to identify the lease area. Visual 

resources in and around this area, however, could be affected by subsequent commercial 

development of tar sands. 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-430 

FIGURE 6.2.3-4 Designated Critical Habitats of Threatened and Endangered Species That Are 

near Pending Tar Sands Lease Areas under Alternative 3 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-431 

FIGURE 6.2.3-5 Distribution of Core and Priority Habitat Areas for Greater Sage-Grouse That 

Are in or near Pending Tar Sands Lease Areas under Alternative 3
Final OSTS PEIS 6-432 

 The Dinosaur Diamond Prehistoric National Scenic Highway is located within the area 

identified as available for application for leasing under Alternative 3 (Figure 6.2.3-6). 

 Scenic resource areas are located within 5 or 15 mi of the area in Alternative 3 identified 

as available for commercial leasing (Figure 6.2.3-6). The 5-mi zone corresponds to the BLM’s 

VRM foreground-middleground distance limit, and the 15-mi zone corresponds to the BLM’s 

background distance limit. Based on the assumption of an unobstructed view of a commercial tar 

sands project, viewers in these areas would be likely to perceive some level of visual impact 

from the project; more impacts would be expected for resources within the foregroundmiddleground distance, and fewer for resources within the background distance. Beyond the 

background distance, the project might be visible but would likely occupy a very small visual 

angle and create low levels of visual contrast such that impacts would be expected to be minor to 

negligible. Table 6.2.3-3 presents the scenic resource areas within these zones. 

 Visual resources at these areas, as well as elsewhere within the area available for 

application for leasing, could be affected at and near where commercial tar sands projects are 

developed and operated, and at areas where supporting infrastructure (such as and utility and 

pipeline ROWs) would be located. Visual resources could be affected by ROW clearing, project 

construction, and operation (see Section 5.9.1). Potential impacts would be associated with 

construction equipment and activity, cleared project areas, and the type and visibility of 

individual project components, such as tar sands processing facilities, utility ROWs, and surface 

mines. The nature, magnitude, and extent of project-related impacts would depend on the type, 

location, and design of the individual project components. 

6.2.3.9 Cultural Resources 

 Under Alternative 3, 2,100 acres of public land are available for commercial tar sands 

leasing. Nine archaeological sites have been identified in that area (O’Rourke et al. 2012). Only 

150 acres have been surveyed for the presence of cultural resources. Additional cultural 

resources are likely in unsurveyed portions of the study area. Because of the lack of survey 

information, no sensitivity analysis was possible for Alternative 3. 

 Impacts on cultural resources within the Asphalt Ridge STSA would be considered if 

leasing and future commercial development occur. Leasing itself has the potential to impact 

cultural resources to the extent that the terms of the lease limit an agency’s ability to avoid, 

minimize, or mitigate adverse effects of proposed development on cultural properties. Impacts 

from future development could include the destruction of individual resources present within 

development areas, degradation and/or destruction of near-surface resources in or near the 

development area, increased potential of loss of resources from looting or vandalism of resources 

as a result of increased human presence and activity in the sensitive areas, and visual degradation 

of the cultural setting (see Section 6.2.3.8). Any future leasing and development would be 

subject to compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA as well as all other pertinent laws, 

regulations, and policies. Compliance with these laws would result in measures to avoid, 

minimize, or mitigate impacts, or to denial of the lease or project. 
FIGURE 6.2.3-6 Scenic Resource Areas within the 5- and 15-mi Zones around the Lands Available for Application Alternative 3 for the Asphalt Ridge STSA 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-434 

TABLE 6.2.3-3 Visually Sensitive Areas That Could Be Affected by Commercial Tar Sands 

Projects Developed in Lease Areas under Alternative 3 

Scenic Resources within 5 mi 

of Alternative 2 Lease Areas 

Scenic Resources between 5 and 15 mi 

of Alternative 2 Lease Areas 

 

Dinosaur Diamond Prehistoric and Flaming Gorge 

Uintas National Scenic Highways. 

Red Mountain-Dry Fork ACEC. 

Dinosaur Diamond Prehistoric and Flaming Gorge 

Uintas National Scenic Highways. 

Dinosaur National Monument. 

Quarry Visitor Center National Historic Landmark. 

Ouray National Wildlife Refuge. 

Blue Mountain, Pelican Lake, Red Mountain-Dry Fork 

SRMAs. 

6.2.3.10 Indian Tribal Concerns 

Alternative 3 would amend the same land use plans as Alternative 2 but would identify 

only a single area of about 2,100 acres for potential tar sands development. The area is defined 

by a pending lease application for tar sands development in Utah’s Asphalt Ridge STSA. The 

amending of the management plan to include this allotment would not in and of itself impact any 

resources important to Native Americans located in this parcel. However, the development of 

this 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 location of the development and the technology used. The 

technologies under consideration for this alternative have yet to be determined, but to the extent 

that ground surface is disturbed, there is the potential for the loss of archaeological sites, burials, 

rock art, and other physical features, while increased access and increased human activity could 

lead to increased vandalism and visual and auditory intrusion on sacred places. Adverse effects 

on resources important to Native Americans would be reduced by the implementation of legally 

required procedures in the amended management plans for cultural resources survey and 

government-to-government consultations with the affected tribes. Project-specific NEPA 

analyses that would be required could result in lease stipulations specific to the parcels 

considered for lease, resulting in avoidance and protection of the resources through changes in 

project design and development plans. 

6.2.3.11 Socioeconomics 

 Under Alternative 3, land use plans would be amended to identify 2,100 acres of land in 

Utah as available for application for commercial tar sands development. With the possible 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-435 

exception of an impact on property values, there is no socioeconomic impact of this action. 

Although the socioeconomic and transportation impacts of Alternative 3 would be dependent on 

the ultimate development of the proposed tar sands lease in the Asphalt Ridge STSA, the types 

of impacts that could occur would be the same as those for Alternative 1. as described in 

Section 5.11 and summarized in Section 6.2.1.11. The specific impacts would be dependent upon 

the technologies employed, the project size or production level, development time lines, 

mitigation measures, and the location of employee housing. 

 Under Alternative 3, it is possible that there would be property value impacts simply 

from designating land as available or not available for application for leasing; these impacts 

could result in either decreased or increased property values (see Section 4.11.1.6). 

6.2.3.12 Environmental Justice 

 Although the environmental justice impacts of Alternative 3 would be dependent on the 

ultimate development of the proposed tar sands lease in the Asphalt Ridge STSA, the types of 

impacts that would occur on lands made available for application for commercial leasing by the 

proposed land use plan amendments under Alternative 3 would be the same as those described in 

Section 5.13 and summarized in Section 6.2.1.12. 

6.2.3.13 Hazardous Materials and Waste Management 

 Potential impacts from hazardous materials and waste management considerations related 

to commercial tar sands operations are presented in Section 6.2.1.13 under Alternative 1. 

Because the use of hazardous materials and the generation of wastes are directly related to the 

specific design of a commercial tar sands project, it is not possible to quantify project-related 

impacts of these materials for the 2,100-acre tar sands lease application that composes tar sands 

Alternative 3. Accidental releases of the hazardous materials or wastes could affect natural 

resources (such as water quality or wildlife) and human health and safety (see Sections 5.14 and 

6.2.1.14) at locations where facilities are sited within the Alternative 3 lease area. 

6.2.3.14 Health and Safety 

 Potential impacts on worker health and safety and on members of the public from 

operation of a commercial tar sands facility are presented in Section 6.2.1.14 under Alternative 1. 

The level of health and safety impacts under Alternative 3 would be mainly dependent on the 

extent of tar sands development, the extent of health and safety precautions imposed by the 

operator, and the eventual design of any project within the 2,100-acre tar sands lease application 

that composes tar sands Alternative 3. Important design considerations affecting the surrounding 

area would be related to the level of air and water emissions associated with the facility. 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-436 

6.2.4 Impacts of Alternative 4, Moderate Development 

 Under Alternative 4, the same four existing Utah land use plans as included in 

Alternative 2 would be amended to identify 435,369 acres as available for application for 

commercial tar sands leasing. These lands are included within 10 designated STSAs: Argyle 

Canyon, Asphalt Ridge, Hill Creek, Pariette, P.R. Spring, Raven Ridge, San Rafael, Sunnyside, 

Tar Sand Triangle, and White Canyon (see Figure 2.4.3-4 and Table 2.4.3-3). The public lands 

that would be available under Alternative 4 consist of 361,587 acres of BLM-administered lands 

and 73,782 acres of split estate lands. (See Sections 2.4.3 and 2.4.3.3 for a complete description 

of Alternative 4.) Figure 2.4.3-4 shows the lands available for application for leasing under 

Alternative 4. In this alternative, any leasing or development of tar sands resources would be 

managed under the requirements of the four existing land use plans and consistent with the ROD 

from the 2008 PEIS. Public lands within the study area not identified as available for application 

for leasing would be excluded from application for leasing. Prior to approval of any commercial 

leasing or development of tar sands resources, additional NEPA analysis would be required. 

6.2.4.1 Land Use 

 Alternative 4 would make available 435,369 acres for application for commercial leasing 

and is structured the same as Alternative 1 but removes additional ACECs designated since 

completion of the 2008 OSTS PEIS and ROD, removes any potential ACECs identified in 

ongoing planning efforts, and recognizes that the management of both sage-grouse core habitat 

and LWC may affect the amount of land that will be available for application for commercial 

leasing. Local field offices will be considering how to manage both core sage-grouse and LWC, 

and for that reason, a potential range of acreage that may be available for commercial leasing 

under this alternative has been provided. A complete description of this alternative, including the 

rationale for including a range of potential development, is found in Section 2.4.3.3. 

Table 6.2.1-1 lists the acreages per STSA in this alternative. 

 Alternative 4 makes slightly more acres available for application for commercial tar 

sands leasing than Alternative 1, but the potential for development of commercial tar sands in 

this alternative is the same as in Alternative 1. The nature of the impacts of Alternative 4 on land 

uses would be essentially the same as that for Alternative 1 in Section 6.2.2.1 with the following 

exceptions: 

• There are an additional 10,419 acres of designated ACECs that are removed 

from potential leasing. 

• While there are 226,484 acres with tar sands resources that contain either 

sage-grouse core habitat or LWC that are available for application for leasing 

in Alternative 4, it is not possible to estimate how much of that land may 

ultimately be committed to protection of these resources. For that reason, 

in Tables 2.4.3-4 and 2.4.3-5 a range of potentially available acreages is 

presented, ranging from 283,331 to 384,690 acres, corresponding to 75% 

and 25% protection of core sage-grouse habitat and LWC acreage. 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-437 

• Several wild horse and burro HMAs overlap lands that would be available for 

application for tar sands leasing, including the Hill Creek HMA, which 

overlaps with the Hill Creek STSA (18,724 acres); the Muddy Creek and 

Sinbad HMAs, which overlap with the San Rafael STSA (3,480 and 

39,677 acres, respectively); the Range Creek HMA, which overlaps with the 

Sunnyside STSA (13,876 acres); and the Canyon Lands HMA, which overlaps 

with the Tar Sand Triangle STSA (267 acres) (Figure 6.2.4-1). Any tar sands 

development that occurs in HMAs would need to protect wild horses and 

burros under the Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act of 1971. 

6.2.4.2 Soil and Geologic Resources 

 Under Alternative 4, land use plans would be amended to designate 435,369 acres in 

Utah as available for commercial tar sands leasing. The amendment of land use plans to identify 

this area would not have any direct impacts on soil and geologic resources in these lands. 

Development of commercial tar sands projects could, however, affect soils and geologic 

resources in these lands. 

 Construction-related activities could directly disturb surface and subsurface soils during 

clearing and grading activities and construction of project facilities and infrastructure. This 

disturbance could include soil disturbance, removal, and compaction, and disturbed areas would 

be more susceptible to the effects of precipitation and wind-driven erosion (see Section 5.3.1). 

Surface and subsurface mining activities during project operations would directly disturb 

geologic resources. Erosion of exposed soils could lead to increased sedimentation of nearby 

water bodies and to the generation of fugitive dust. Soils in project areas would remain 

susceptible to erosion until completion of construction, mining, and tar sands processing 

activities, and site stabilization and reclamation (e.g., revegetation of pipeline ROWs and surface 

mine reclamation). Impacts on soil and geologic resources would be limited to the specific 

project location as well as to areas where associated off-lease infrastructure (e.g., access roads 

and utility ROWs) would be located. 

 Under Alternative 4, project-related impacts could occur wherever individual projects are 

located within the 435,369 acres identified for application for leasing under this alternative. For 

any project, the erosion potential of the soils would be a direct function of the lease and project 

location and of the soil characteristics, vegetative cover, and topography (i.e., slope) at that 

location. Development in areas that have erosive soils and steep slopes (e.g., in excess of 25%) 

could lead to serious erosion problems at those locations. 

6.2.4.3 Paleontological Resources 

 Under Alternative 4, land use plans would be amended to designate 435,369 acres in 

Utah for commercial tar sands leasing. The designation of leasing areas, as well as the 

amendment of land use plans to incorporate these areas, would not affect paleontological 

resources because these actions do not authorize or approve any ground-disturbing activities. 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-438 

FIGURE 6.2.4-1 Lands Available for Application for Tar Sands Leasing under Alternative 4 in 

Relation to Wild Horse and Burro Herd Management Areas 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-439 

Paleontological resources within these areas, however, could be adversely affected if leasing and 

subsequent commercial development occur. Of the acreage identified as available for application 

for leasing under Alternative 4, a total of 338,760 acres (approximately 78% of the 435,369 acres 

that would be available under Alternative 4) has been identified as overlying geologic formations 

having the potential to contain important paleontological resources (Murphey and Daitch 2007). 

 Impacts from tar sands development 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 

areas, 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. These impacts and the 

application of mitigation measures to reduce or eliminate them are discussed in Section 5.4. 

6.2.4.4 Water Resources 

 The acreage available for application for leasing under Alternative 4 is very similar to the 

extent available under Alternative 1. There is a potential for indirect adverse impacts on water 

resources, as described in Section 5.5. In those areas that are available for application for leasing 

under Alternative 4, the potential impacts would be the same as those described for Alternative 1 

in Section 6.2.1.4. Under Alternative 4, approximately 188 mi (69%) of perennial streams was 

identified in the STSAs that could be impacted by future commercial development, which is not 

significantly different from the 185 mi identified under Alternative 1. 

 The assessment of impacts on water resources under Alternative 4 has the same 

limitations identified under Alternative 1. Without site-specific information on the location and 

type of technology to be employed, it is not possible to assess the overall impacts of this 

alternative. 

6.2.4.5 Air Quality 

 Under Alternative 4, 435,369 acres of public land would be made available within Utah 

for application for leasing for commercial development of tar sands (Section 2.4.3.3). Air 

resources would not be affected by this action. Air resources in and around these areas, however, 

could be affected by future commercial development of tar sands. Under Alternative 4, local, 

short-term air quality impacts could be incurred as a result of (1) PM releases (fugitive dust and 

diesel exhaust) during construction activities such as site clearing and grading in preparation for 

facility construction, and (2) exhaust emissions (NOx, CO, PM, VOC, and SO2) from 

construction equipment and vehicles (see Section 5.6). These types of impacts would be of short 

duration and largely limited to specific project locations and the immediate surrounding area. 

Similar short-term impacts could also occur in other areas where electric transmission lines, oil 

pipelines, transportation ROWs, and other infrastructure would be located and developed. 

 Similar but longer term impacts on local air quality could occur during normal project 

operations such as mining and processing of the tar sands. Processing activities may also result in 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-440 

regional impacts on air quality and AQRVs, such as visibility and acid deposition, that could 

extend beyond the boundaries of the potential lease areas. These regional impacts would be 

associated with operational releases of NOx, CO, PM, and other pollutants (VOCs and SO2) 

during tar sands excavation and processing (see Section 5.6). In addition, ozone precursors of 

NOx and VOC from tar sands development could exacerbate wintertime high-ozone occurrences 

already prevalent in the study area, especially in Uintah County. Operational releases of HAPs 

(such as benzene, toluene, and formaldehyde) as well as diesel PM could also affect workers and 

nearby residences (if any are present); these impacts, however, would be localized to the 

immediate project location and subject to further analyses prior to implementation. 

 During all phases of tar sands development, GHG emissions of primarily CO2 and lesser 

amounts of CH4 and N2O from combustions sources could contribute to climate change to some 

extent. 

6.2.4.6 Noise 

 Under Alternative 4, a total of 435,369 acres of public land would be made available 

within Utah for application for leasing for commercial development of tar sands 

(Section 2.4.3.3). Ambient noise levels in these areas would not be affected by this action. 

Ambient noise levels could be affected, however, by future commercial development of tar 

sands. Under Alternative 4, local, short-term changes in ambient noise levels could occur during 

the construction, operation, and reclamation of tar sands projects (see Section 5.7.1). Projectrelated increases in noise levels could disturb or displace wildlife and recreational users in 

nearby areas. Impacts on wildlife and recreational users are discussed in Sections 5.8.1.3 and 

5.2.1.4, respectively. 

 Noise levels could be affected as a result of the operation of construction equipment 

(graders, excavators, and haul trucks) and as a result of any blasting activities. Increases in 

ambient noise levels during operations would be associated with mining and tar sands processing 

activities and would be more long term than construction-related noise. These types of impacts 

would be largely limited to specific project locations and the immediate surrounding area. 

Similar short-term and long-term impacts could also occur in other areas where electric 

transmission lines, oil pipelines, transportation ROWs, and other infrastructure would be located, 

developed, and operated. For example, ambient noise levels could also be increased in the 

immediate vicinity of any pipeline pump stations and could also be affected by project-related 

vehicular traffic at the project site and related locations such as access roads to the site. 

 Construction-related noise levels could exceed EPA guidelines. Similarly, operational 

noise associated with mining and retort activities could, in the absence of mitigation, exceed 

EPA guidelines at some project locations or at nearby sensitive receptors. Noise generated as a 

result of project-related vehicular traffic is not expected to exceed EPA guideline levels except 

for short durations and very close to road or high traffic areas. 

 In the absence of lease- and project-specific information, it is not possible at the level of 

this PEIS to identify the duration and magnitude of any project-related changes in noise levels. 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-441 

Changes to ambient noise levels from project development could occur where a project is located 

within the 435,369 acres identified for application for leasing under Alternative 4. 

6.2.4.7 Ecological Resources 

 Under Alternative 4, a total of 435,369 acres of public land would be made available 

within Utah for application for leasing for commercial development of tar sands. These lands 

support a wide variety of biota and their habitats (Section 3.7). Ecological resources in these 

areas would not be affected by the identification of future lands available or not available for 

application for leasing or by amendment of land use plans to incorporate these lease areas. 

Ecological resources in and around these areas, however, could be affected by future commercial 

development of tar sands in these areas. The following sections describe the potential impacts on 

ecological resources that may result from commercial tar sands development within the areas 

identified as available for application for commercial leasing under Alternative 4. 

 The magnitude of the impact on specific ecological resources that could be affected by 

commercial tar sands development in areas identified as available for application for commercial 

leasing in Alternative 4 would depend on the specific location of the commercial tar sands 

projects as well as on specific project design. 

6.2.4.7.1 Aquatic Resources. Under Alternative 4, a total of 435,369 acres of land in 

Utah would be made available for application for leasing for commercial tar sands development. 

There are no impacts on aquatic habitats associated with this land use designation. Impacts could 

result, however, from post-lease construction and operation as described in Section 5.8.1.1. 

These impacts would be considered in project-specific NEPA analyses that would be conducted 

at the commercial lease and development phases of projects. 

 Potential impacts on aquatic resources from tar sands development could result primarily 

from increased turbidity and sedimentation, changes to water table levels, degradation of surface 

water quality (e.g., alteration of water temperature, salinity, and nutrient levels), the release of 

toxic substances to surface water, and increased public access to aquatic habitats as described in 

Section 5.8.1.1. As described in Section 5.8.1.1, there is a potential for development and 

production activities in upland areas to affect surface water and groundwater beyond the area 

where surface disturbance or water withdrawals occur. Consequently, the analysis here considers 

the potential for impacts in waterways up to 2 mi beyond the boundary of the lands that would be 

allocated for potential leasing under this alternative. However, as project development activities 

occur farther from waterways, the potential for negative effects on aquatic resources is reduced. 

For the analysis of potential impacts under each of the alternatives considered in this PEIS, it 

was assumed that the potential for negative impacts on aquatic resources increases as the area 

potentially affected (i.e., the area that would be considered for leasing) increases and as the 

number and extent of waterways within a 2-mi zone surrounding those areas increases. 

 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-442 

 Under Alternative 4, there are 9 perennial streams and 

about 27 mi of perennial stream habitat within the STSAs of 

Utah that are directly overlain by areas that would be 

potentially available for tar sands development 

(Table 6.2.4-1). When an additional 2-mi zone surrounding 

these areas is considered, there are 20 perennial streams and 

about 188 mi of perennial stream habitat that could be 

affected by future development activities (Table 6.2.1-5). The 

development of commercial tar sands projects in the areas 

identified under Alternative 4 could impact aquatic biota and 

their habitats during project construction and operations, 

thereby resulting in short- and/or long-term changes 

(disturbance or loss) in the abundance and distribution of 

affected biota and their habitats. As described in 

Section 5.1.1.1, impacts from water quality degradation and 

water depletions could affect resources in areas not only 

within or immediately adjacent to leased areas but also 

farther downstream in affected watersheds. The nature and 

magnitude of impacts, as well as the specific resources 

affected, would depend on the locations of the areas where project construction and facilities 

occur, the aquatic resources present in those areas, and the mitigation measures implemented. 

 The types of aquatic habitats and organisms that could be impacted by future 

development in the vicinity of the STSAs are described in Section 3.7.1.2, and some of these 

aquatic habitats are known to, or are likely to, contain federally listed endangered fish, statelisted or BLM-designated sensitive species (Section 3.7.4), and other native fish and invertebrate 

species that could be negatively affected by development. Specific impacts would depend greatly 

upon the locations and methods of extraction used by future projects. Project-specific NEPA 

analyses would be conducted prior to any future leasing decisions to evaluate potential impacts 

in greater detail. 

6.2.4.7.2 Plant Communities and Habitats. Under Alternative 4, a total of 

435,369 acres of public land in Utah would be made available for application for commercial 

leasing of tar sands resources. There would be no impacts on plant communities and habitats 

associated with identifying lands as available for application for leasing. Impacts could result, 

however, from post-lease construction and operation as described in Section 5.8.1.2. These 

impacts would be considered in greater detail in project-specific NEPA analyses that would be 

conducted at the commercial lease and development phases of projects. 

 Areas identified as available for application for commercial leasing under Alternative 4 

support a wide variety of plant communities and habitats (see Section 3.7.2). These areas include 

approximately 7,403 acres that are currently identified in BLM land use plans for the protection 

of riparian habitat, floodplains, and special status plant species. Direct and indirect impacts on 

plant communities and habitats could be incurred on these areas during project construction and 

operation and extend over a period of several decades (especially within facility and 

TABLE 6.2.4-1 Perennial 

Streams in Utah within the 

Lease Areas Identified under 

Alternative 4 

Stream Length of 

Stream (mi) 

 

Bitter Creek 5.62 

Center Fork 1.9 

Cottonwood Canyon 4.9 

Dry Creek 5.5 

Nine-Mile Draw <0.1 

Sand Wash 0.5 

Sweetwater Canyon 6.0 

Tabyago Canyon 2.1 

Wells Draw 1.1

 

Total 27.5 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-443 

infrastructure footprints) (see Section 5.8.1.2). Some impacts, such as habitat loss, may continue 

beyond the termination of tar sands production. 

 Direct impacts on plant communities and habitat from future construction and operation 

activities would include the destruction of vegetation and habitat during land clearing on the 

lease site and also where ancillary facilities, such as access roads, pipelines, transmission lines, 

and employer-provided housing, would be located. Soils disturbed during construction would be 

susceptible to the introduction and establishment of non-native invasive species, which in turn 

could greatly reduce the success of establishment of native plant communities during reclamation 

of project areas and create a source of future colonization and subsequent degradation of adjacent 

undisturbed areas. Plant communities and habitats could also be adversely affected by changes in 

water quality or availability, resulting in plant mortality or reduced growth, with subsequent 

changes in community composition and structure and declines in habitat quality. Indirect impacts 

on terrestrial and wetland habitats on or off the project site could result from land clearing and 

exposed soil; soil compaction; and changes in topography, surface drainage, and infiltration 

characteristics. These impacts could lead to changes in the abundance and distribution of plant 

species and changes in community structure, as well as to the introduction or spread of invasive 

species. 

 Affected plant communities and habitats could incur short- and/or long-term changes in 

species composition, abundance, and distribution. While many impacts would be local, occurring 

within construction and operation footprints and in the immediate surrounding area, the 

introduction of invasive species could affect much larger areas. The nature and magnitude of 

these impacts, as well as the communities or habitats affected, would depend on the locations of 

the areas where project construction and facilities would occur, the plant communities and 

habitats present in those areas, and the mitigation measures implemented to address impacts. 

 The area available for application for leasing under Alternative 4 includes locations that 

support oil shale endemic plant species. Local populations of oil shale endemics, which typically 

occur as small scattered populations on a limited number of sites, could be reduced or lost as a 

result of tar sands development activities. Establishment and long-term survival of these species 

on reclaimed land may be difficult. 

 No ACECs are included in the lands available under this alternative. Therefore direct 

impacts on sensitive plant species and plant communities within ACECs would not occur. 

However, four ACECs are located adjacent to the Alternative 4 footprint: Pariette Wetlands, 

Nine Mile Canyon, San Rafael Reef, and Leers Canyon. Each of these ACECs includes rare or 

sensitive plant species and/or rare or important plant communities. Indirect impacts on these 

species and communities could occur. 

 Three ACECs with rare plant species and/or rare or important plant communities are 

located near (within 5 mi) of the Alternative 4 footprint: Red Mountain-Dry Fork (3.1 mi), 

Raven Ridge (2.0 mi), and Cottonwood-Diamond Watershed (0.6 mi). Indirect impacts on the 

sensitive species or communities within these ACECs could occur. 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-444 

6.2.4.7.3 Wildlife. Under Alternative 4, 

435,369 acres of public land would remain 

available within Utah for application for leasing 

for commercial development of tar sands. While 

no impacts on wildlife species associated with 

the identification of lands as available or not 

available for application for commercial leasing 

are expected, impacts could result from 

post-lease construction and operation as 

described in Section 5.8.1.3. These impacts 

would be considered in greater detail in projectspecific NEPA analyses that would be 

conducted at the commercial lease and 

development phases of projects. The areas 

available for application for leasing support a 

diverse array of wildlife and habitats 

(see Section 3.7.3). Various stipulations are 

included in the BLM RMPs that provide 

protection for various wildlife species. These 

include lands designated as (1) NSO (where the 

BLM does not allow long-term grounddisturbing activities [i.e., with an impact that 

would last longer than 2 years]), (2) CSU 

(where the BLM places special restrictions, including shifting a ground-disturbing activity by 

more than 200 m from the proposed location to another location to protect a specific resource 

such as a raptor nest), and (3) TL (where the BLM may allow specified activities but not during 

certain sensitive seasons, such as when raptors are nesting or when big game are on their winter 

ranges). Table 6.2.4-2 identifies the amount of habitat protected by these stipulations in areas 

available for application for tar sands leasing in Alternative 4. In most instances, the stipulations 

for wildlife are TLs. In the White Canyon STSA, there are stipulations listed as closed to leasing, 

controlled surface use/TL, NSO, and TLs that total 7,000 acres; however, no information was 

available as to whether these stipulations applied to wildlife. 

 Areas identified in Alternative 4 as available for application for commercial leasing 

overlap with areas identified by state natural resource agencies as seasonal habitat for big game 

species. These areas include mule deer and elk winter and summer ranges (Figures 6.2.4-2 and 

6.2.4-3). Table 6.2.4-3 presents the amounts of these habitats that occur in the Alternative 4 lease 

areas and that could be impacted by future commercial tar sands development in these areas. 

 Impacts on wildlife from commercial tar sands projects (see Section 5.8.1.3) in 

Alternative 4 lease areas could occur in a number of ways and would be related to (1) habitat 

loss, alteration, or fragmentation; (2) disturbance and displacement of biota; (3) mortality; 

(4) exposure to hazardous materials; and (5) increase in human access. These could result in 

changes in species distribution and abundance; habitat use; changes in behavior; collisions with 

structures or vehicles; changes in predator populations; and chronic or acute toxicity from 

hydrocarbons, herbicides, or other contaminant exposures. 

TABLE 6.2.4-2 Wildlife Habitat Protected by 

Stipulations in BLM RMPs within the 

Alternative 4 Tar Sands Lease Areas

Habitat Description 

Area of Habitat 

(acres)a

 

Birds 

 Raptor nesting areas 5 (18)b

 

Mammals 

 Elk crucial winter range 112,809 (147,676) 

 Elk calving habitat 26,804 (30,387) 

 Mule deer crucial winter range 96,564 (104,011) 

 Mule deer fawning habitat 23,584 (25,574) 

 Mule deer migration corridor 41,588 (42,322) 

a Acreages may be overestimated because of 

unknown degree of habitat overlap among species 

or habitat types for a species. For these reasons, 

columns should not be totaled. 

b Numbers in parentheses are the wildlife habitat 

acreage identified for protection within the most 

geologically prospective lands. 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-445 

FIGURE 6.2.4-2 Lands Available for Application for Tar Sands Leasing under Alternative 4 in 

Relation to the Summer and Winter Ranges of the Mule Deer 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-446 

FIGURE 6.2.4-3 Lands Available for Application for Tar Sands Leasing under Alternative 4 in 

Relation to the Summer and Winter Ranges of the Elk 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-447 

 Wildlife could also be affected by human activities 

not directly associated with the tar sands project or its 

workforce but instead associated with the increased access to 

BLM-administered lands that had previously received little 

use. The construction of new access roads or improvements 

to old access roads could lead to increased human access 

into the area. Potential impacts associated with increased 

access include (1) the disturbance of wildlife from human 

activities, including an increase in legal and illegal take and 

an increase of invasive vegetation, (2) an increase in the 

incidence of fires, and (3) increased runoff that could 

adversely affect riparian or other wetland areas that are 

important to wildlife. 

 The potential for impacts on wildlife and their 

habitats from commercial tar sands development is directly 

related to the amount of land disturbance that would occur with a commercial project (including 

its ancillary facilities, such as power plants and utility and pipeline ROWs), the duration and 

timing of construction and operation periods, and the habitat affected by development (i.e., the 

location of the project). Indirect effects, such as impacts resulting from the erosion of disturbed 

land surfaces, water depletions, contamination, and disturbance and harassment, are also 

considered. Their magnitude is also considered to be proportional to the amount of land 

disturbance. 

6.2.4.7.4 Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species. Under Alternative 4, land 

use plans would be amended to identify 435,369 acres of land in Utah as available for 

application for leasing for commercial development of tar sands. (See Section 2.3.3.3 for a full 

description of Alternative 4.) There would be no impacts on threatened and endangered species 

associated with this land use plan amendment action. Impacts could result, however, from postlease construction and operation as described in Section 5.8.1.4. These impacts would be 

considered in greater detail in project-specific NEPA analyses that would be conducted at the 

commercial lease and development phases of projects. In addition, the BLM’s approval of any 

projects would be subject to appropriate compliance with the ESA and those policies provided 

under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Various 

stipulations are included in the BLM RMPs that provide protection for different threatened, 

endangered, and sensitive species. These include (1) lands designated as NSO (where the BLM 

does not allow long-term ground-disturbing activities [i.e., with an impact that would last longer 

than 2 years]), (2) CSU, and (3) lands designated as TL. Table 6.2.4-4 identifies the amount of 

habitats protected by these stipulations in areas available for application for tar sands leasing in 

Alternative 4. In most instances, the stipulations for these species are TLs. In the White Canyon 

STSA, there are stipulations listed as closed to leasing, CSU/TL, NSO, and TLs; however, no 

information was available as to whether these stipulations applied to threatened, endangered, and 

sensitive species. 

TABLE 6.2.4-3 State-Identified 

Elk and Mule Deer Habitat 

Present in the Alternative 4 Tar 

Sands Lease Areas 

Habitat Description 

Area of Habitat 

(acres) 

 

Mule Deer 

Winter habitat 228,985 

Summer habitat 80,828 

 

Elk 

Winter habitat 200,224 

Summer habitat 67,469 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-448 

 Under Alternative 4, 66 of the 56 federal 

candidate, BLM-designated sensitive, and statelisted species listed in Table 6.2.4-5 and 23 of the 

23 federally listed threatened or endangered species 

listed in Table 6.2.4-6 could occur in areas that are 

available for application for commercial leasing of 

tar sands. This determination is based on records of 

occurrence in project counties, species occurrences 

from stage natural heritage programs,33 and the 

presence of potentially suitable habitat.34 Potential 

lease areas include about 27,200 acres of critical 

habitat for the Mexican spotted owl (Strix 

occidentalis lucida); designated critical habitat for 

Colorado River endangered fishes may also occur 

downstream within 10 mi of potential tar sands 

lease areas (Figure 6.2.4-4). Greater sage-grouse 

(Centrocercus urophasianus) core habitats and lek 

sites are shown in Figure 6.2.4-5. Potential tar 

sands lease areas under Alternative 4 intersect 

approximately 87,900 acres of core and priority 

sage-grouse habitat in Utah. 

 The potential for impacts on threatened, 

endangered, and sensitive species (and their habitats) by commercial tar sands development is 

directly related to the amount of land disturbance that could occur with a commercial project 

(including its ancillary facilities, such as power plants and utility and pipeline ROWs), the 

duration and timing of construction and operation periods, and the habitats affected by 

development. Indirect effects, such as impacts resulting from the erosion of disturbed land 

surfaces, surface or groundwater depletions, contamination, and disturbance and harassment of 

animal species, are also considered, but their relative magnitude is considered proportional to the 

amount of land disturbance. 

 Potential impacts on threatened, endangered, and sensitive species under Alternative 4 

are similar to or the same as impacts on aquatic resources; plant communities and habitats; and 

wildlife described in Sections 6.2.4.7.1, 6.2.4.7.2, and 6.2.4.7.3, respectively. The most 

 

33 Spatial data were obtained from state natural heritage program or conservation offices that represented USGS 

quad-level or township range-level occurrences of species (CNHP 2011; UDWR 2011; WYNDD 2011a). A 

spatial analysis was performed to determine the distance of recorded occurrences of each species to the potential 

lease areas. For species tracked in these state databases, these distance measurements are provided in 

Tables 6.2.4-5 and 6.2.4-6. 

34 Spatial models representing potentially suitable habitat of terrestrial vertebrate wildlife species were obtained 

from USGS (2007) and WYNDD (2011b). For species with an available habitat model, a spatial analysis was 

performed to quantify the amount of potentially suitable habitat within the potential lease areas. This 

quantification is presented in Tables 6.2.4-5 and 6.2.4-6. 

TABLE 6.2.4-4 Habitat for Threatened, 

Endangered, and Sensitive Species 

Protected by Stipulations in BLM RMPs 

within the Alternative 4 Tar Sands Lease 

Areas 

Habitat Description 

Area of Habitat

(acres)a

Plants 

Graham’s penstemon habitat 1,625 (1,625)b

Birds 

Bald eagle habitat 36 (280) 

Sage-grouse habitat 42,017 (53,866) 

a Acreage may be overestimated because of the 

unknown degree of habitat overlap among 

species or habitat types for a species. For these 

reasons, columns should not be totaled. 

b Numbers in parentheses are the acreages 

identified for protection within the most 

geologically prospective lands. 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-449 

TABLE 6.2.4-5 Potential Effects of Commercial Tar Sands Development under Alternative 4 on 

BLM-Designated Sensitive Species, Federal Candidates for Listing, State-Listed Species, and State 

Species of Special Concern 

Scientific Name Common Name Statusa

Utah Counties 

within the Study 

Area in Which 

Species May 

Occur Potential for Effectb

 

Plants 

Amsonia jonesii Jones blue star BLM-S Duchesne, 

Emery, Garfield, 

Grand, San 

Juan, Uintah, 

Wayne 

Potential for negative impact.

Suitable habitat may occur in the 

STSAs. Quad-level occurrences are 

within 13 mi from the STSAs. 

 

Aquilegia 

scopulorum var.

goodrichii 

Utah columbine BLM-S Carbon, 

Duchesne, 

Emery, Grand, 

Uintah 

Potential for negative impact.

Suitable habitat may occur in the 

study area.

 

Arabis vivariensis Park rockcress BLM-S Uintah Potential for negative impact.

Suitable habitat may occur in the 

study area.

 

Astragalus detritalis Debris milkvetch BLM-S Duchesne, 

Uintah 

Potential for negative impact.

Suitable habitat may occur in the 

STSAs. Quad-level occurrences of 

this species intersect the STSAs. 

 

Astragalus 

duchesnensis 

Duchesne milkvetch BLM-S Duchesne, 

Uintah 

Potential for negative impact.

Suitable habitat may occur in the 

STSAs. Quad-level occurrences of 

this species intersect the STSAs. 

 

Astragalus 

equisolensis 

Horseshoe milkvetch BLM-S Uintah Potential for negative impact.

Suitable habitat may occur in the 

study area.

 

Astragalus 

hamiltonii 

Hamilton’s milkvetch BLM-S Uintah Potential for negative impact.

Suitable habitat may occur in the 

study area.

 

Astragalus 

musiniensis 

Ferron milkvetch BLM-S Emery, Garfield, 

Grand, Wayne 

Potential for negative impact.

Suitable habitat may occur in the 

STSAs. Quad-level occurrences are 

within 13 mi from the STSAs. 

 

Astragalus 

naturitensis 

Naturita milkvetch BLM-S San Juan No impact. This species is not 

known to occur in the vicinity of any 

STSAs. Nearest occurrences are 

approximately 40 mi from the 

STSAs. 

 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-450 

TABLE 6.2.4-5 (Cont.)

Scientific Name Common Name Statusa

Utah Counties 

within the Study 

Area in Which 

Species May 

Occur Potential for Effectb

 

Plants (Cont.) 

Astragalus piscator Fisher Towers 

milkvetch 

BLM-S Garfield, Grand, 

San Juan, 

Wayne 

Potential for negative impact. 

Suitable habitat may occur in the 

STSAs. 

 

Astragalus 

rafaelensis 

San Rafael milkvetch BLM-S Emery, Grand Potential for negative impact.

Suitable habitat may occur in the 

STSAs. 

 

Cirsium ownbeyi Ownbey’s thistle BLM-S Uintah No impact. This species is not 

known to occur in the vicinity of any 

STSAs. Nearest occurrences are 

approximately 20 mi from the 

STSAs. 

 

Cleomella 

palmeriana var. 

goodrichii 

Goodrich cleomella BLM-S Uintah Potential for negative impact.

Suitable habitat may occur in the 

study area.

 

Cryptantha 

barnebyi 

Barneby’s cat’s-eye BLM-S Uintah Potential for negative impact.

Suitable habitat may occur in the 

study area.

 

Cryptantha 

caespitosa 

Caespitose cat’s-eye BLM-S Carbon, 

Duchesne, 

Uintah 

No impact. This species is not 

known to occur in the vicinity of any 

STSAs. Nearest occurrences are 

approximately 9 mi from the STSAs. 

 

Cryptantha 

grahamii 

Graham’s cat’s-eye BLM-S Uintah Potential for negative impact.

Suitable habitat may occur in the 

study area.

 

Cryptantha 

osterhoutii 

Osterhout cat’s eye BLM-S Emery, Garfield, 

Grand, San 

Juan, Wayne 

Potential for negative impact.

Suitable habitat may occur in the 

STSAs. 

 

Cryptantha rollinsii Rollins’ cat’s eye BLM-S Duchesne, San 

Raphael, Uintah, 

Wayne 

Potential for negative impact.

Suitable habitat may occur in the 

STSAs. Quad-level occurrences of 

this species intersect the STSAs. 

 

Cymopterus 

duchesnensis 

Uinta Basin springparsley BLM-S Duchesne, 

Uintah

Potential for negative impact.

Suitable habitat may occur in the 

STSAs. Quad-level occurrences of 

this species intersect the STSAs. 

 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-451 

TABLE 6.2.4-5 (Cont.)

Scientific Name Common Name Statusa

Utah Counties 

within the Study 

Area in Which 

Species May 

Occur Potential for Effectb

 

Plants (Cont.) 

Eriogonum 

contortum 

Grand buckwheat BLM-S Grand Potential for negative impact.

Suitable habitat may occur in the 

STSAs. Quad-level occurrences are 

within 13 mi from the STSAs. 

 

Eriogonum 

ephedroides 

Ephedra buckwheat BLM-S Uintah Potential for negative impact.

Suitable habitat may occur in the 

STSAs. Quad-level occurrences of 

this species intersect the STSAs. 

 

Frasera 

ackermanae 

Ackerman frasera BLM-S Uintah Potential for negative impact.

Suitable habitat may occur in the 

study area.

 

Gentianella 

tortuosa 

Utah gentian BLM-S Duchesne, 

Emery, Garfield, 

Uintah 

No impact. This species is not 

known to occur in the vicinity of any 

STSAs. Nearest occurrences are 

approximately 30 mi from the 

STSAs in Utah. 

 

Gilia stenothyrsa Narrow-stem gilia BLM-S Carbon, 

Duchesne, 

Emery, Uintah 

Potential for negative impact.

Suitable habitat may occur in the 

STSAs. Quad-level occurrences of 

this species intersect the STSA. 

 

Hymenoxys 

lapidicola 

Rock hymenoxys BLM-S Uintah Potential for negative impact.

Suitable habitat may occur in the 

study area.

 

Lepidium huberi Huber’s pepperplant BLM-S Uintah Potential for negative impact.

Suitable habitat may occur in the 

study area.

 

Listera borealis Northern twayblade BLM-S Duchesne, San 

Juan 

No impact. This species is not 

known to occur in the vicinity of any 

STSAs. Nearest occurrences are 

approximately 90 mi from the 

STSAs. 

 

Lygodesmia 

doloresensis 

Dolores River 

skeletonplant 

BLM-S Grand Potential for negative impact.

Suitable habitat may occur in the 

STSAs. Quad-level occurrences are 

within 13 mi from the STSAs. 

 

Mentzelia 

goodrichii 

Goodrich’s blazinstar BLM-S Duchesne, 

Uintah 

Potential for negative impact.

Suitable habitat may occur in the 

study area.

 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-452 

TABLE 6.2.4-5 (Cont.)

Scientific Name Common Name Statusa

Utah Counties 

within the Study 

Area in Which 

Species May 

Occur Potential for Effectb

 

Plants (Cont.) 

Mimulus 

eastwoodiae 

Eastwood monkeyflower BLM-S Garfield, Grand, 

San Juan 

Potential for negative impact.

Suitable habitat may occur in the 

STSAs. 

 

Minuartia nuttallii Nuttall sandwort BLM-S Duchesne Potential for negative impact.

Suitable habitat may occur in the 

STSAs. 

 

Parthenium 

ligulatum 

Ligulate feverfew BLM-S Wayne Potential for negative impact.

Suitable habitat may occur in the 

STSAs. Quad-level occurrences of 

this species intersect the STSAs. 

 

Pediomelum 

aromaticum 

Paradox breadroot BLM-S Grand, San Juan Potential for negative impact. 

Suitable habitat may occur in the 

STSAs. 

 

Penstemon 

scariosus var.

albifluvis 

White River 

beardtongue 

ESA-C Uintah Potential for negative impact. 

Suitable habitat may occur in the 

STSAs. Quad-level occurrences of 

this species intersect the STSAs.

 

Phacelia argylensis Argyle Canyon 

phacelia 

BLM-S Uintah Potential for negative impact.

Suitable habitat may occur in the 

study area.

 

Townsendia 

strigosa 

Strigose Easter-daisy BLM-S Duchesne, 

Uintah 

Potential for negative impact.

Suitable habitat may occur in the 

STSAs. 

 

Yucca sterilis Spanish bayonet BLM-S Uintah Potential for negative impact.

Suitable habitat may occur in the 

study area.

 

Invertebrates 

Speyeria nokomis 

nokomis 

Great Basin silverspot 

butterfly 

BLM-S Duchesne, 

Uintah 

Potential for negative impact. 

Suitable habitat may occur in the 

STSAs.

 

Fish 

Catostomus 

discobolus 

Bluehead sucker BLM-S Carbon, 

Duchesne, 

Emery, Garfield, 

Grand, San 

Juan, Uintah 

Potential for negative impact.

Suitable habitat may occur in the 

STSAs. Quad-level occurrences of 

this species intersect the STSAs.

 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-453 

TABLE 6.2.4-5 (Cont.)

Scientific Name Common Name Statusa

Utah Counties 

within the Study 

Area in Which 

Species May 

Occur Potential for Effectb

 

Fish (Cont.) 

Catostomus 

latipinnis 

Flannelmouth sucker BLM-S Carbon, 

Duchesne, 

Emery, Garfield, 

Grand, San 

Juan, Uintah; 

Wayne; 

Potential for negative impact.

Suitable habitat may occur in the 

STSAs. Quad-level occurrences of 

this species intersect the STSAs. 

 

Catostomus 

platyrhynchus 

Mountain sucker BLM-S Carbon, 

Duchesne, 

Emery, Grand, 

Uintah 

Potential for negative impact. 

Suitable habitat may occur in the 

STSAs.

 

Gila robusta Roundtail chub BLM-S Carbon, 

Duchesne, 

Emery, Garfield, 

Grand, San 

Juan, Uintah, 

Wayne 

Potential for negative impact.

Suitable habitat may occur in the 

STSAs. Quad-level occurrences of 

this species intersect the STSAs. 

 

Oncorhynchus 

clarkii pleuriticus 

Colorado River 

cutthroat trout 

BLM-S Duchesne, 

Garfield, 

Uintah, Wayne 

Potential for negative impact.

Suitable habitat may occur in the 

STSAs. Quad-level occurrences of 

this species intersect the STSAs. 

 

Amphibians 

Bufo boreas Boreal toad BLM-S; 

UT-SC 

Carbon, 

Duchesne, 

Emery, Garfield, 

Uintah, Wayne 

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 10,590 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the STSAs. Quadlevel occurrences are within 5 mi 

from the STSAs. 

 

Hyla arenicolor Canyon treefrog BLM-S Garfield, Grand, 

Wayne, San 

Juan 

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 15,984 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the STSAs.

 

Rana luteiventris Columbia spotted frog BLM-S Utah, Wasatch No impact. Suitable habitat for the 

species does not occur in the STSAs, 

and it is not known to occur in the 

vicinity of the STSAs. Nearest 

occurrences are approximately 30 mi 

from the STSAs.

 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-454 

TABLE 6.2.4-5 (Cont.)

Scientific Name Common Name Statusa

Utah Counties 

within the Study 

Area in Which 

Species May 

Occur Potential for Effectb

 

Amphibians (Cont.) 

Rana pipiens Northern leopard frog BLM-S Carbon, 

Duchesne, 

Emery, Garfield, 

Grand, San 

Juan, Uintah, 

Wayne 

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 840 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the STSAs. This 

species is not known to occur in the 

vicinity of any STSAs. Nearest 

occurrences are approximately 40 mi 

from the STSAs.

 

Spea intermontana Great basin spadefoot BLM-S Carbon, 

Duchesne, 

Emery, Garfield, 

Grand, San 

Juan, Uintah, 

Wayne 

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 356,572 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the STSAs. This 

species is not known to occur in the 

vicinity of any STSAs. Nearest 

occurrences are approximately 20 mi 

from the STSAs.

 

Reptiles 

Elaphe guttata Corn snake BLM-S; 

UT-SC 

Grand, San Juan Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 6,547 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the STSAs. Quadlevel occurrences are within 5 mi 

from the STSAs. 

 

Liochlorophis 

vernalis 

Smooth greensnake BLM-S; 

UT-SC 

Carbon, 

Duchesne, 

Grand, San 

Juan, Uintah 

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 3,331 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the STSAs. Quadlevel occurrences of this species 

intersect the STSAs.

 

Xantusia vigilis Desert night lizard BLM-S; 

UT-SC 

Garfield, 

San Juan 

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 3,302 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the STSAs. Quadlevel occurrences of this species 

intersect the STSAs.

 

Birds 

Accipiter gentilis Northern goshawk BLM-S Carbon, 

Duchesne, 

Emery, Garfield, 

Grand, San 

Juan, Uintah, 

Wayne 

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 103,433 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the STSAs. Quadlevel occurrences of this species 

intersect the STSA.

 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-455 

TABLE 6.2.4-5 (Cont.)

Scientific Name Common Name Statusa

Utah Counties 

within the Study 

Area in Which 

Species May 

Occur Potential for Effectb

 

Birds (Cont.) 

Ammodramus 

savannarum 

Grasshopper sparrow UT-SC Duchesne, 

Uintah, Utah, 

Wasatch 

No impact. Suitable habitat for the 

species does not occur in the STSAs.

 

Athene cunicularia Burrowing owl BLM-S Carbon, 

Duchesne, 

Emery, Garfield, 

Grand, San 

Juan, Uintah, 

Wayne 

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 154,858 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the STSAs. Quadlevel occurrences of this species 

intersect the STSAs.

 

Buteo regalis Ferruginous hawk BLM-S; 

UT-SC 

Carbon, 

Duchesne, 

Emery, Garfield, 

Grand, San 

Juan, Uintah, 

Wayne 

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 135,373 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the STSAs. Quadlevel occurrences of this species 

intersect the STSAs.

 

Centrocercus 

minimus

Gunnison sage-grouse ESA-C; 

UT-SC 

Grand, San Juan Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 569 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the STSAs. This 

species is not known to occur in the 

vicinity of any STSAs. Nearest 

occurrences are approximately 30 mi 

from the STSAs.

 

Centrocercus 

urophasianus 

Greater sage-grouse ESA-C; 

BLM-S; 

UT-SC 

Carbon, 

Duchesne, 

Emery, Garfield, 

Grand, San 

Juan, Uintah, 

Wayne 

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 107,660 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the STSAs. Quadlevel occurrences of this species 

intersect the STSAs.

 

Charadrius 

montanus

Mountain plover BLM-S; 

UT-SC 

Rio Blanco Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 9,024 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the STSAs. Quadlevel occurrences of this species 

intersect the STSAs.

 

Coccyzus 

americanus 

occidentalis

Western yellow-billed 

cuckoo 

ESA-C; 

BLM-S 

Duchesne, 

Garfield, Grand, 

San Juan, 

Uintah, Wayne 

Potential for negative impact. 

Suitable habitat for the species does 

not occur in the STSAs. Quad-level 

occurrences of this species intersect 

the STSAs.

 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-456 

TABLE 6.2.4-5 (Cont.)

Scientific Name Common Name Statusa

Utah Counties 

within the Study 

Area in Which 

Species May 

Occur Potential for Effectb

 

Birds (Cont.) 

Cypseloides niger Black swift BLM-S; 

UT-SC 

Duchesne, 

Uintah

No impact. Suitable habitat for the 

species does not occur in the STSAs, 

and it is not known to occur in the 

vicinity of the STSAs. Nearest 

occurrences are approximately 20 mi 

from the STSAs.

 

Dolichonyx 

oryzivorus 

Bobolink BLM-S; 

UT-SC 

Carbon, 

Duchesne, 

Emery, Garfield, 

Grand, San 

Juan, Uintah, 

Wayne 

Potential for negative impact. 

Suitable habitat for the species does 

not occur in the STSAs. Quad-level 

occurrences of this species intersect 

the STSAs.

 

Haliaeetus 

leucocephalus 

Bald eagle BLM-S Carbon, 

Duchesne, 

Emery, Garfield, 

Grand, San 

Juan, Uintah, 

Wayne 

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 248,684 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the STSAs. Quadlevel occurrences of this species 

intersect the STSAs.

 

Melanerpes lewis Lewis’s woodpecker BLM-S; 

UT-SC 

Carbon, 

Duchesne, 

Emery, Garfield, 

Grand, San 

Juan, Uintah, 

Wayne 

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 12,895 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the STSAs. Quadlevel occurrences of this species 

intersect the STSAs.

 

Numenius 

americanus 

Long-billed curlew BLM-S; 

UT-SC 

Carbon, 

Duchesne, 

Emery, Garfield, 

Grand, San 

Juan, Uintah, 

Wayne 

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 2,420 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the STSAs. Quadlevel occurrences of this species 

intersect the STSAs.

 

Pelecanus 

erythrorhynchos 

American white 

pelican 

BLM-S; 

UT-SC 

Carbon, 

Duchesne, 

Emery, Garfield, 

Grand, San 

Juan, Uintah, 

Wayne 

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 3,473 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the STSAs. Quadlevel occurrences of this species 

intersect the STSAs.

 

Picoides tridactylus Three-toed 

woodpecker 

BLM-S; 

UT-SC 

Carbon, 

Duchesne, 

Emery, Garfield, 

Grand, San 

Juan, Uintah, 

Wayne 

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 2,904 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the STSAs.

 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-457 

TABLE 6.2.4-5 (Cont.)

Scientific Name Common Name Statusa

Utah Counties 

within the Study 

Area in Which 

Species May 

Occur Potential for Effectb

 

Mammals 

Brachylagus 

idahoensis

Pygmy rabbit BLM-S; 

UT-SC 

Garfield, Wayne No impact. Suitable habitat for the 

species does not occur in the STSAs, 

and it is not known to occur in the 

vicinity of the STSAs. Nearest 

occurrences are approximately 40 mi 

from the STSAs.

 

Corynorhinus 

townsendii 

pallescens 

Townsend’s big-eared 

bat 

BLM-S; 

UT-SC 

Carbon, 

Duchesne, 

Emery, Garfield, 

Grand, San 

Juan, Uintah, 

Wayne 

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 381,352 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the STSAs. Quadlevel occurrences of this species 

intersect the STSAs.

 

Cynomys gunnisoni Gunnison’s prairie dog ESA-C; 

BLM-S; 

UT-SC 

Grand, San Juan No impact. Suitable habitat for the 

species does not occur in the project 

area, and it is not known to occur in 

the vicinity of the STSAs. Nearest 

occurrences are approximately 40 mi 

from the STSAs.

 

Cynomys leucurus White-tailed prairie 

dog 

BLM-S; 

UT-S 

Carbon, 

Duchesne, 

Emery, Grand, 

Uintah 

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 130,846 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the STSAs. Quadlevel occurrences of this species 

intersect the STSAs.

 

Euderma 

maculatum 

Spotted bat BLM-S; 

UT-SC 

Duchesne, 

Garfield, Grand, 

San Juan, 

Uintah, Wayne 

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 297,077 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the STSAs. Quadlevel occurrences are within 4 mi 

from the STSAs. 

 

Idionycteris 

phyllotis 

Allen’s big-eared bat BLM-S; 

UT-SC

Garfield, Grand, 

San Juan, 

Wayne 

Potential for negative impact. 

Suitable habitat for the species does 

not occur in the STSAs. Quad-level 

occurrences are within 13 mi from 

the STSAs. 

 

Lasiurus blossevillii Western red bat BLM-S; 

UT-SC 

Carbon, Emery, 

Grand, Garfield, 

San Juan, 

Wayne 

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 28 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the STSAs. Quadlevel occurrences are within 10 mi 

from the STSAs. 

 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-458 

TABLE 6.2.4-5 (Cont.)

Scientific Name Common Name Statusa

Utah Counties 

within the Study 

Area in Which 

Species May 

Occur Potential for Effectb

 

Mammals (Cont.) 

Myotis thysanodes Fringed myotis BLM-S; 

UT-SC 

Duchesne, 

Garfield, Grand, 

San Juan, 

Uintah, Wayne 

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 407,185 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the STSAs. Quadlevel occurrences of this species 

intersect the STSA.

 

Nyctinomops 

macrotis 

Big free-tailed bat BLM-S; 

UT-SC 

Carbon, 

Duchesne, 

Emery, Garfield, 

Grand, San 

Juan, Uintah, 

Wayne

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 309,502 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the STSAs. Quadlevel occurrences of this species 

intersect the STSA.

 

Vulpes macrotis Kit fox BLM-S Carbon, 

Duchesne, 

Emery, Garfield, 

Grand, San 

Juan, Uintah, 

Wayne 

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 31,641 acres of 

potentially suitable habitat for this 

species occurs in the STSAs. Quadlevel occurrences of this species 

intersect the STSAs.

a Status categories: BLM-S = listed by the BLM as sensitive; ESA-C = candidate for listing under the ESA; 

UT-SC = species of special concern in the state of Utah; WY-SC. 

b Potential impacts are based upon the presence of potentially suitable habitat or recorded occurrences in the vicinity of the 

STSAs. Recorded occurrences were obtained as USGS quad-level or township range-level element occurrence records 

from state natural heritage program offices (CNHP 2011; UDWR 2011; WYNDD 2011a). If available for terrestrial 

vertebrates, SWReGAP animal habitat suitability models (USGS 2007) and terrestrial vertebrate distribution models for 

the state of Wyoming (WYNDD 2011b) were used to determine the presence of potentially suitable habitat in the STSAs. 

important difference is the potential consequence of the impacts. Because of their low population 

sizes, threatened and endangered species are far more vulnerable than more common and 

widespread species. Low population size makes them more vulnerable to the effects of habitat 

fragmentation, habitat alteration, habitat degradation, human disturbance and harassment, 

mortality of individuals, and the loss of genetic diversity. Specific impacts associated with 

development would depend on the locations of projects relative to species populations and the 

details of project development. These impacts would be evaluated in detail in project-specific 

assessments and consultations conducted prior to leasing and development. 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-459 

TABLE 6.2.4-6 Potential Effects of Commercial Tar Sands Development under Alternative 4 on 

Federally Listed Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Species 

Scientific Name Common Name Statusa

Utah Counties within 

the Study Area in Which 

Species May Occur Potential for Effectb

 

Plants 

Cycladenia 

humilis var.

jonesii 

Jones 

cycladenia 

ESA-T Emery, Garfield, Grand, 

Uintah 

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the STSAs. Quad-level 

occurrences of this species intersect the 

STSAs.

 

Erigeron 

maguirei 

Maguire daisy ESA-T Emery, Garfield, Wayne Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the STSAs.

 

Pediocactus 

despainii 

San Rafael 

cactus 

ESA-E Emery, Wayne Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the STSAs. Quad-level 

occurrences of this species intersect the 

STSAs.

 

Pediocactus 

winkleri 

Winkler cactus ESA-T Emery, Wayne Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the STSAs. Quad-level 

occurrences are within 11 mi from the 

STSAs. 

 

Penstemon 

grahamii 

Graham’s 

beardtongue

ESA-PT; 

BLM-S

Duchesne, Uintah Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the STSAs. Quad-level 

occurrences of this species intersect the 

STSAs.

 

Phacelia 

argillacea 

Clay phacelia ESA-E Wasatch Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the STSAs. Quad-level 

occurrences are within 5 mi from the STSAs. 

 

Schoenocrambe 

argillacea 

Clay reedmustardESA-T Uintah Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the STSAs. Quad-level 

occurrences are within 6 mi from the STSAs. 

 

Schoenocrambe 

barnebyi 

Barneby reedmustard ESA-E Emery, Wayne Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the STSAs. Quad-level 

occurrences are within 9 mi from the STSAs. 

 

Schoenocrambe 

suffrutescens 

Shrubby reedmustard ESA-E Duchesne, Uintah Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the STSAs. Quad-level 

occurrences of this species intersect the 

STSAs.

 

Sclerocactus 

brevispinus 

Pariette cactus ESA-T Duchesne, Uintah Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the STSAs. Quad-level 

occurrences of this species intersect the 

STSAs.

 

Sclerocactus 

wetlandicus 

Uinta Basin 

hookless cactus 

ESA-T Carbon, Duchesne, 

Uintah 

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the STSAs. Quad-level 

occurrences of this species intersect the 

STSAs. 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-460 

TABLE 6.2.4-6 (Cont.)

Scientific Name Common Name Statusa

Utah Counties within 

the Study Area in Which 

Species May Occur Potential for Effectb

 

Plants (Cont.) 

Sclerocactus 

wrightiae 

Wright 

fishhook cactus

ESA-E Emery, Wayne Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the STSAs. Quad-level 

occurrences are within 4 mi from the STSAs. 

 

Spiranthes 

diluvialis 

Ute ladies’-

tresses 

ESA-T Duchesne, Garfield, 

Uintah, Wayne 

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the STSAs. Quad-level 

occurrences of this species intersect the 

STSAs.

 

Townsendia 

aprica 

Last chance 

townsendia

ESA-T Emery, Wayne Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the STSAs. Quad-level 

occurrences of this species intersect the 

STSAs.

 

Fish 

Gila cypha Humpback 

chub 

ESA-E Carbon, Emery, 

Garfield, Grand, 

San Juan, Uintah, 

Wayne 

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the STSAs. Designated 

critical habitat occurs within 10 mi from 

STSAs. Quad-level occurrences are within 5 

mi from the STSAs. 

 

Gila elegans Bonytail ESA-E Carbon, Duchesne, 

Emery, Garfield, Grand, 

San Juan, Uintah, 

Wayne 

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the STSAs. Designated 

critical habitat occurs within 10 mi from the 

STSAs. Quad-level occurrences of this 

species intersect the STSAs.

 

Ptychocheilus 

lucius 

Colorado 

pikeminnow

ESA-E Carbon, Duchesne, 

Emery, Garfield, Grand, 

San Juan, Uintah, 

Wayne 

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the STSAs. Designated 

critical habitat occurs within 10 mi from the 

STSAs. Quad-level occurrences of this 

species intersect the STSAs.

 

Xyrauchen 

texanus 

Razorback 

sucker 

ESA-E Carbon, Emery Garfield, 

Grand, San Juan, 

Uintah, Wayne 

Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat may occur in the STSAs. Designated 

critical habitat occurs within 10 mi from the 

STSAs. Quad-level occurrences of this 

species intersect the STSAs.

 

Birds 

Empidonax 

traillii extimus 

Southwestern 

willow 

flycatcher 

ESA-E Carbon, Emery, 

Garfield, Grand, 

San Juan, Uintah, 

Wayne 

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 20,539 acres of potentially 

suitable habitat for this species occurs in the 

STSAs.

 

Gymnogyps 

californianus

California 

condor 

ESA-E Grand Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 30,203 acres of potentially 

suitable habitat for this species occurs in the 

STSAs.

 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-461 

TABLE 6.2.4-6 (Cont.)

Scientific Name Common Name Statusa

Utah Counties within 

the Study Area in Which 

Species May Occur Potential for Effectb

 

Birds (Cont.) 

Strix 

occidentalis 

lucida 

Mexican 

spotted owl 

ESA-T Emery, Garfield, Grand, 

San Juan, Uintah, 

Wayne 

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 105,184 acres of potentially 

suitable habitat for this species occurs in the 

STSAs. Quad-level occurrences of this 

species intersect the STSAs.

 

Mammals 

Lynx 

canadensis 

Canada lynx ESA-T Emery, Uintah Potential for negative impact. Suitable 

habitat for the species does not occur in the 

STSAs. Quad-level occurrences are within 13 

mi from the STSAs. 

 

Mustela 

nigripes 

Black-footed 

ferret

ESA-XN Carbon, Duchesne, 

Emery, Grand, 

San Juan, Uintah 

Sublette, Sweetwater 

Potential for negative impact. 

Approximately 10,319 acres of potentially 

suitable habitat for this species occurs in the 

STSAs. Quad-level occurrences of this 

species intersect the STSAs.

a Status categories: BLM-S = listed by the BLM as sensitive; ESA-E = listed as endangered under the ESA; 

ESA-PT = proposed for listing as a threatened species under the ESA; ESA-T = listed as threatened under the ESA; 

ESA-XN = experimental, nonessential population. 

b Potential impacts are based upon the presence of potentially suitable habitat or recorded occurrences in the vicinity of the 

STSAs. Recorded occurrences were obtained as USGS quad-level or township range-level element occurrence records 

from the UDWR (2011). If available for terrestrial vertebrates, SWReGAP animal habitat suitability models (USGS 2007) 

were used to determine the presence of potentially suitable habitat in the STSAs. Spatial data for designated critical habitat 

were obtained from the USFWS Critical Habitat Portal (USFWS 2011).

6.2.4.8 Visual Resources 

 The lands that would remain available for application for leasing for commercial 

development of tar sands under Alternative 4 support a wide variety of visual resources 

(Section 3.9). These resources would not be affected by the amendment of land use plans to 

identify these potential lease areas. Visual resources in and around the identified areas, however, 

could be affected by subsequent commercial development of tar sands. 

 Several scenic resource areas are located within the areas identified as available for 

application for leasing under Alternative 4 (Figures 6.2.4-6 through 6.2.4-9). These scenic 

resource areas include: 

• The White Canyon SRMA; 

• The Dinosaur Diamond Prehistoric National Scenic Highway; 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-462 

FIGURE 6.2.4-4 Designated Critical Habitats of Threatened and Endangered Species That Are in 

or near Pending Tar Sands Lease Areas under Alternative 4 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-463 

FIGURE 6.2.4-5 Distribution of Core and Priority Habitat Areas for Greater Sage-Grouse That 

Are near Pending Tar Sands Lease Areas under Alternative 4 
FIGURE 6.2.4-6 Scenic Resource Areas within the 5- and 15-mi Zones around the Lands Available for Application Alternative 4 for the Asphalt Ridge, Pariette, and Raven Ridge STSAs 
FIGURE 6.2.4-7 Scenic Resource Areas within the 5- and 15-mi Zones around the Lands Available for Application Alternative 4 for the Hill Creek, P.R. Spring, and Sunnyside STSAs 
FIGURE 6.2.4-8 Scenic Resource Areas within the 5- and 15-mi Zones around the Lands Available for Application Alternative 4 for the San Rafael STSA 
FIGURE 6.2.4-9 Scenic Resource Areas within the 5- and 15-mi Zones around the Lands Available for Application Alternative 4 for the Tar Sand Triangle and White Canyon STSAs 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-468 

• The Bicentennial State Scenic Highway and 

• The Indian Canyon State Scenic Byway. 

 Additional scenic resource areas are located within 5 or 15 mi of the areas in 

Alternative 4 identified as available for commercial leasing (Figures 6.2.4-6 through 6.2.4-9). 

The 5-mi zone corresponds to the BLM’s VRM foreground-middleground distance limit, and the 

15-mi zone corresponds to the BLM’s background distance limit. Based on the assumption of an 

unobstructed view of a commercial tar sands project, viewers in these areas would be likely to 

perceive some level of visual impact from the project; more impacts would be expected for 

resources within the foreground-middleground distance and fewer within the background 

distance. Beyond the background distance, the project might be visible but would likely occupy a 

very small visual angle and create low levels of visual contrast such that impacts would be minor 

to negligible. Table 6.2.4-7 presents the scenic resource areas within these zones. 

 Visual resources at these areas, as well as elsewhere within the areas available for 

application for leasing, could be affected at and near where commercial tar sands projects are 

developed and operated, and at areas where supporting infrastructure (such as and utility and 

pipeline ROWs) would be located. Visual resources could be affected by ROW clearing, project 

construction, and operation (see Section 5.9.1). Potential impacts would be associated with 

construction equipment and activity, cleared project areas, and the type and visibility of 

individual project components such as tar sands processing facilities, utility ROWs, and surface 

mines. The nature, magnitude, and extent of project-related impacts would depend on the type, 

location, and design of the individual project components. 

6.2.4.9 Cultural Resources 

 Under Alternative 4, a total of 435,369 acres of public land would remain available for 

commercial tar sands leasing. The lands that would remain available contain cultural resources 

(O’Rourke et al. 2012). More than16% of public lands that would remain available for 

application for leasing in the STSAs under Alternative 4 have been surveyed for cultural 

resources (more than 67,700 acres in addition to 1,045 linear mi).35 In those areas that have been 

surveyed, 706 sites have been identified. Additional cultural resources are likely in unsurveyed 

portions of the study area. On the basis of a sensitivity analysis conducted for the Class I Cultural 

Resources Overview (O’Rourke et al. 2012), a total of 223,167 acres within areas available for 

application for leasing in Alternative 4 have been identified as having a medium or high 

sensitivity for containing cultural resources.36

 

35 This percentage was calculated using block acre surveys only and does not include approximately 1,045 linear 

mi of survey. 

36 The Circle Cliffs STSA and portions of the Argyle Canyon, Asphalt Ridge, Raven Ridge, Sunnyside, Tar Sand 

Triangle, and White Canyon STSAs have not been surveyed sufficiently to derive sensitivity information. Out of 

435,369 acres available under Alternative 4, sensitivity information is available for 406,386 acres (93%). 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-469 

TABLE 6.2.4-7 Visually Sensitive Areas That Could Be Affected by Commercial Tar Sands 

Projects Developed in Lease Areas under Alternative 4 

Scenic Resources within 5 mi 

of Alternative 4 Lease Areas 

Scenic Resources between 5 and 15 mi 

of Alternative 4 Lease Areas 

 

Bull Canyon, Crack Canyon, Dark Canyon ISA 

Complex, Desolation Canyon, Devils Canyon, Dirty 

Devil, Fiddler Butte, Flume Canyon, French SpringHappy Canyon, Horseshoe Canyon (South), Jack 

Canyon, Link Flats ISA, Mexican Mountain, Muddy 

Creek, San Rafael Reef, Sids Cabin 202, Sids 

Mountain, Spruce Canyon, and Winter Ridge WSAs. 

Book Cliffs Mountain Browse ISA, Bull Canyon, 

Butler Wash, Cheese Box Canyon, Coal Canyon, 

Crack Canyon, Daniels Canyon, Dark Canyon ISA 

Complex, Demaree Canyon, Desolation Canyon, Dirty 

Devil, Fiddler Butte, Floy Canyon, Flume Canyon, 

French Spring-Happy Canyon, Horseshoe Canyon 

(South), Jack Canyon, Little Rockies, Mancos Mesa, 

Mexican Mountain, Mt. Hillers, Muddy Creek, Oil 

Spring Mountain, San Rafael Reef, Sids Mountain, 

Skull Creek, Spruce Canyon, Turtle Canyon, and 

Willow Creek WSAs. 

 

Copper Globe, Cottonwood-Diamond Watershed, I-70 

Scenic, Lears Canyon, Lucky Strike, Muddy Creek, 

Muddy Creek-Tomsich Butte, Nine Mile, Pariette, 

Raven Ridge, Raven Ridge Addition, Raven 

Ridge/Raven Ridge Addition, Red Mountain-Dry Fork, 

Rock Art, San Rafael Canyon, San Rafael Reef, 

Shepards End, Swaseys Cabin, Temple Mountain, 

Tidwell Draw, and Wild Horse Canyon ACECs. 

Big Flat Tops, Big Hole, Coal Oil Rim, Cottonwood 

Canyon, Cottonwood-Diamond Watershed, Dry Lake, 

Dry Wash, Hidden Splendor, Hunt Cabin, I-70 Scenic, 

Kings Crown, Little Susan, Lower Green River 

Corridor, Molen Seep, Moosehead Mountain, Muddy 

Creek, Muddy Creek-Tomsich Butte, Nine Mile, North 

Salt Wash, Oil Spring Mountain, Pariette, Raven 

Ridge, Raven Ridge Addition, Raven Ridge/Raven 

Ridge Addition, Red Mountain-Dry Fork, Rock Art, 

San Rafael Canyon, San Rafael Reef, Sand Cove, 

Segers Hole, Short Creek, Smith Cabin, and White 

River Riparian, Wilsonville ACECs. 

 

Blue Mountain, Dark Canyon, Nine Mile, Red 

Mountain-Dry Fork, and White Canyon SRMAs. 

Beef Basin, Blue Mountain, Dark Canyon, Labyrinth 

Rims/Gemini Bridges, Nine Mile, Pelican Lake, Red 

Mountain-Dry Fork, White Canyon, and White River 

SRMAs. 

 

Dinosaur Diamond Prehistoric and Flaming GorgeUintas National Scenic Highways, Bicentennial and 

Indian Canyon State Scenic Highways, and Nine Mile 

Canyon BLM Backcountry Backway. 

Dinosaur Diamond Prehistoric, The Energy Loop: 

Huntington/Eccles Canyons, and Flaming GorgeUintas National Scenic Highways, Bicentennial and 

Indian Canyon State Scenic Highways, Bull Creek 

Pass and Nine Mile Canyon BLM Backcountry 

Backways, and Eccles Canyon National Forest Scenic 

Byway. 

 

Glen Canyon National Recreation Area Canyonlands National Park, Dark Canyon Wilderness, 

Ouray National Wildlife Refuge, Glen Canyon 

National Recreation Area, Dinosaur and Natural 

Bridges National Monuments. 

 

Segments of the Upper Green River and Lower Green 

River are eligible for W&SR designation. 

Quarry Visitor Center National Historic Landmark and 

Old Spanish Trail National Historic Trail. 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-470 

 Impacts on cultural resources within these areas would be considered if leasing and 

future commercial development occur. Leasing itself has the potential to impact cultural 

resources to the extent that the terms of the lease limit an agency’s ability to avoid, minimize, or 

mitigate adverse effects of proposed development on cultural properties. Impacts from future 

development could include the destruction of individual resources present within development 

areas, degradation and/or destruction of near-surface resources in or near the development area, 

increased potential of loss of resources from looting or vandalism of resources as a result of 

increased human presence and activity in the sensitive areas, and visual degradation of the 

cultural setting (see Section 6.2.4.8). Any future leasing and development would be subject to 

compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA as well as all other pertinent laws, regulations, and 

policies. Compliance with these laws would result in measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate 

impacts, or to denial of the lease or project. The cultural resources in the Circle Cliffs STSA 

would not be impacted by tar sands leasing and development because no leasing and 

development would occur in this STSA. The cultural resources in the Argyle Canyon, Hill 

Creek, Pariette, Raven Ridge, San Rafael, Tar Sand Triangle, and White Canyon STSAs are less 

likely to be impacted by tar sands leasing and development than those resources present in the 

Asphalt Ridge, P.R. Spring, and Sunnyside STSAs. 

6.2.4.10 Indian Tribal Concerns 

Alternative 4 (Moderate Development) is similar in scale to Alternative 1. Under 

Alternative 4, approximately 5,000 more acres would be available for application for leasing 

than under Alternative 1. It would require amending the same four management plans as 

Alternative 1, and the same types of extractive technologies would be considered. In addition to 

the lands excluded from tar sands leasing under Alternative 1, Alternative 4 would exclude the 

ACEC acreage added during planning efforts in Utah since the 2008 OSTS PEIS ROD was 

issued. The withdrawal of these additional acreages from consideration for leasing would afford 

some added protection to any resources important to Native Americans that may be located 

there. The amending of the management plans to make this allocation decision would not in and 

of itself impact any resources important to Native Americans. The development of these parcels, 

however, would have the potential for the same kinds of effects discussed for Alternative 1, on a 

similar scale. The degree of adverse impact resulting from development would depend on the 

location of the development and the technology used. Both surface mining and in situ processes 

would be considered. To the extent that ground surface is disturbed, there is the potential for the 

loss of plant and mineral resources, the habitat of culturally important animals, archaeological 

sites, burials, rock art, and other physical features, while increased access and increased human 

activity could lead to increased vandalism and visual and auditory intrusion on sacred places. 

Adverse effects on resources important to Native Americans would be reduced by the 

implementation of legally required procedures in the amended management plans for cultural 

resources survey and government-to-government consultations with the affected tribes. Projectspecific NEPA analyses that would be required could result in lease stipulations specific to the 

parcels considered for lease, resulting in avoidance and protection of the resources through 

changes in project design and development plans. 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-471 

6.2.4.11 Socioeconomics 

 Under Alternative 4, land use plans would be amended to identify 435,369 acres of land 

in Utah as available for application for commercial tar sands development. With the possible 

exception of an impact on property values, there is no socioeconomic impact from this action. 

Although the socioeconomic and transportation impacts of Alternative 4 would be dependent on 

the exact locations of future development, the types of impacts that could occur would be the 

same as those for Alternative 1 as described in Section 5.11 and summarized in Section 6.2.1.10. 

The specific impacts would be dependent upon the technologies employed, the project size or 

production level, development time lines, mitigation measures, and the location of employee 

housing. 

 Under Alternative 4, it is possible that there would be property value impacts simply 

from designating land as available or not available for application for leasing; these impacts 

could result in either decreased or increased property values (see Section 4.11.1.6). 

6.2.4.12 Environmental Justice 

 Although the environmental justice impacts of Alternative 4 would be dependent on the 

exact locations of specific developments, the types of impacts that would occur on lands made 

available for application for commercial leasing by the proposed land use plan amendments 

under Alternative 4 would be the same as those for Alternative 1, as described in Section 5.13 

and summarized in Section 6.2.1.12. 

6.2.4.13 Hazardous Materials and Waste Management 

 The hazardous materials and waste management considerations for commercial tar sands 

operations under Alternative 4 would be the same as those under Alternative 1, presented in 

Section 6.2.1.13. 

6.2.3.14 Health and Safety 

 The worker health and safety and public health considerations for commercial tar sands 

operations under Alternative 4 would be the same as those under Alternative 1, presented in 

Section 6.2.1.14. 

6.2.5 Comparison of Tar Sands Alternatives 

 As noted in the impact analysis sections for all alternatives, with the exception noted in 

the socioeconomic analysis regarding potential impacts on land values, these land use plan 

amendments also would not result in any impacts on the environment or socioeconomic setting. 

However, the future development of commercial tar sands projects that could be approved in all 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-472 

alternatives after subsequent NEPA analysis would have impacts on resources and resource 

values. The types of impacts associated with future commercial tar sands development are 

described in Chapter 5. The magnitude of the impacts cannot be quantified at this time because 

key information about the location of commercial projects, the technologies employed, the 

project size or production level, development time lines, and mitigation measures that would be 

applied is unknown. At the programmatic level Alternatives 2 and 3 are more protective of 

known resource values, but Alternatives 1 and 4 incorporate protections for many important 

resources. 

6.2.5.1 Land Use 

 None of the alternatives place a cap on the amount of potential tar sands development, 

although Alternative 3 essentially does this since only 2,100 acres of public lands would be 

available for application for development. Consequently, the potential impacts on land use from 

Alternative 3 would be less than from the other alternatives. Potentially, the level of impacts 

under Alternatives 1 and 4 would be similar, while that for Alternative 2 would be 

proportionately lower, including the requirements for off-site infrastructure. 

 Alternatives 1 and 4 potentially would have the largest and nearly identical impact on 

land use since they include the largest acreage available for application for commercial 

development and they exclude the smallest amount of sensitive resource lands (i.e., LWC, 

ACECs, and lands described in Table 2.4.3-2). 

 Alternative 3 would provide protection to the largest amount of sensitive lands and would 

have the least impact on sensitive lands than all other alternatives, since, by far, the least amount 

of land would be available for application for development. Alternative 2 also would provide 

substantially more protection to sensitive lands (i.e., LWC and lands described in Table 2.4.3-2) 

than Alternatives 1 or 4. Alternative 4 might have somewhat less impact than Alternative 1 since 

it excludes additional ACEC acreage and would provide an undetermined level protection of 

sage-grouse core habitat and LWC lands. There is difficulty in assuming less impact between 

Alternatives 1 and 4 in regard to protection of sage-grouse core habitat and LWC since it must be 

assumed that the implementation of Alternative 1 will be subject to the same national-level 

policies for the protection of sage-grouse core habitat and LWC. 

 The number of acres of wild horse and burro HMAs present in the tar sands lease areas 

for each alternative are as follows: 77,409 for Alternative 1, 17,658 for Alternative 2, none for 

Alternative 3, and 76,024 for Alternative 4. 

6.2.5.2 Soil and Geologic Resources 

 Soils and geologic resources could be affected by future development of commercial tar 

sands projects in areas available for application for tar sands leasing under all four alternatives. 

Potential impacts, related primarily to construction and operation of project facilities and related 

infrastructure, could include soil disturbance, removal or compaction, and erosion. 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-473 

 Impacts on soil and geologic resources would be essentially identical among 

Alternatives 1, 2, and 4 for similar projects located in areas common to the alternatives (i.e., in 

areas where these alternatives overlap). Soil and geologic resources could be affected to a lesser 

degree overall by commercial tar sands development under Alternative 2. The lands excluded 

from application for leasing under Alternative 2 represent some environmentally sensitive areas 

as identified in BLM land use plans that could be developed to some extent under Alternatives 1 

or 4. The nature, location, and magnitude of project-related impacts on soil and geologic 

resources would depend on the specific locations of leases undergoing commercial development 

as well as on the design of the projects. Alternative 3 represents a minimal level of impact 

compared to the other alternatives. 

6.2.5.3 Paleontological Resources 

 Under all the tar sands alternatives, there is a high potential to encounter stratigraphic 

units that contain significant paleontological resources. Although the types of impacts on 

paleontological resources would be the same for similar projects under each alternative, the total 

amount of resources potentially affected would vary because the acreage associated with each 

alternative is different and because fossils are not uniformly distributed within a particular 

formation. For example, the largest area affected would be under Alternative 4, where the 

footprints of future tar sands development, covering a total of 435,369 acres, overlie a total of 

338,760 acres of geologic formations having a high potential to contain important 

paleontological resources. This is followed by Alternative 1, covering a total of 430,686 acres, 

where development footprints overlie a total of 335,396 acres of geologic formations having a 

high potential to contain important paleontological resources (Table 6.2.5-1). 

 Impacts from tar sands development 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 (Section 5.4). These impacts 

could be avoided or minimized by applying mitigation measures during project development. 

Such measures include on-site monitoring by qualified paleontologists to determine whether 

important paleontological resources are present and to collect data from any such resources 

uncovered during project activities. Therefore, most of the potential adverse effects on 

paleontological resources are expected to be mitigated. 

6.2.5.4 Water Resources 

 The land use plan decision considered under Alternatives 1 through 4 would not cause 

environmental impacts on water resources. However, water resources could be adversely 

affected by future commercial tar sands development on these lands. 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-474 

TABLE 6.2.5-1 Available Acreage Overlying Geologic 

Formations with High Potential to Contain Important 

Paleontological Resources by Tar Sands Alternative 

 

Area Overlying 

Formations with High 

Potential 

Alternative 

Development Area 

(acres) Acres Percentage 

 

1 430,686 335,396 78 

2 129,567 116,245 90 

3 2,100 1,458 69 

4 435,369 338,760 78 

 Alternatives 1 and 4 would affect similar numbers of stream miles (185 and 188, 

respectively) and would therefore be expected to have similar overall levels of impact on water 

quality and water quantity issues. Each alternative would potentially affect 20 or more perennial 

streams. Alternative 2 would potentially affect 128 stream miles along 13 perennial streams. For 

each alternative, the impacts would depend on the degree of development, the technologies, and 

site-specific factors. For example, steep slopes and/or locally fragile or highly erosive soils could 

contribute to adverse effects on water quality if disturbed. Groundwater would be impacted 

under the alternatives in terms of use, dewatering, and contamination. Alternative 3 would result 

in a comparatively minimal impact on surface water and groundwater. 

6.2.5.5 Air Quality 

 Under Alternatives 2 and 3, the area encompassed by one pending tar sands lease 

covering about 2,100 acres of land in Utah would be allocated for commercial tar sands 

development. There would be no air quality impacts associated with this land use designation. 

Impacts could result, however, from post-lease construction and operation as described in 

Section 5.6. 

 The identification of additional areas available for application for leasing for commercial 

tar sands development and the associated amendment of appropriate land use plans is similarly 

not expected to affect air quality under Alternatives 1, 2, and 4. However, under these 

alternatives, local and regional air quality and AQRVs could be affected by the construction and 

operation of commercial tar sands projects in the areas available for application for leasing. 

Under Alternatives 1, 2, and 4, the commercial development of a project in an area where the 

alternatives overlap would be expected to have similar impacts on local and regional air quality 

and AQRVs. 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-475 

 Because of the difference in the acreages identified as available for application for 

leasing under all four alternatives, local air quality could be affected by commercial development 

in more locations under Alternatives 1 and 4 (followed by Alternative 2) than under 

Alternatives 3. Many of the lands identified under Alternative 1 as being available for 

application for leasing are excluded from application under Alternative 2 and, to a lesser extent, 

under Alternative 4. However, because of the need for project- and site-specific information, it is 

not possible to identify the nature and magnitude of regional air quality and AQRV impacts for 

future commercial development under all four alternatives. Thus, it is not possible to 

differentiate between these alternatives regarding regional air quality and AQRV impacts. 

6.2.5.6 Noise 

 Under Alternatives 2 and 3, localized noise impacts (i.e., increased noise levels) could 

occur at the pending tar sands lease project location as a result of construction activities, mining 

activities, operation activities, and vehicular traffic. These same types of impacts would also 

occur under Alternatives 1 and 4 from potential future projects. 

 Under Alternatives 1 through 4, there are no noise impacts associated with the 

designation of lands as available for application for tar sands development and the associated 

amendment of appropriate land use plans. Impacts could result, however, from post-lease 

construction and operation as described in Section 5.7. These impacts would be considered in 

project-specific NEPA analyses that would be conducted at the commercial lease and 

development phases of projects.

 

 Impacts on noise levels from future commercial development would be identical among 

Alternatives 1, 2, and 4 for similar projects located in areas common to the alternatives (i.e., in 

areas where these alternatives overlap). Because of the difference in the acreages identified under 

all four alternatives as available for application for leasing, local noise levels could be affected 

by commercial development at more locations under Alternatives 1 and 4 (followed by 

Alternative 2) than under Alternative 3. However, because of the need for project- and sitespecific information, it is not possible to identify the nature and magnitude of noise impacts 

under these alternatives or to differentiate between them. 

6.2.5.7 Ecological Resources 

6.2.5.7.1 Aquatic Resources. The identification of areas available for application for 

leasing for commercial tar sands development and the associated amendment of appropriate land 

use plans would not affect aquatic resources in the areas available for application for leasing. 

Although there are no impacts on aquatic resources associated with identifying lands available 

for application for leasing, impacts could result from post-lease construction and operation, as 

described in Section 5.8.1.1. These impacts would be considered in project-specific NEPA 

analyses that would be conducted at the commercial lease and development phases of projects. 

The types of impacts on aquatic resources associated with construction and operations would be 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-476 

similar for all four alternatives. However, differences exist among these alternatives in the 

amount of lands that would be made available for application for leasing and the location of 

potential lease areas. As a consequence, there are differences among the alternatives relative to 

the amount of aquatic habitat that is immediately within or adjacent to the footprint of the 

allocation areas and in the amount of such habitat within a 2-mi zone surrounding the allocation 

areas. These differences are described in this section. 

 The greatest area of aquatic habitat affected by future commercial tar sands development 

would be under Alternatives 1 and 4, while Alternative 3 would affect the least amount of 

aquatic habitat. Immediately within areas that would be made available for application for 

leasing under Alternative 1, there are 9 perennial streams and about 29 total mi of perennial 

stream habitat that could be affected by future development. There are 9 perennial streams and 

about 28 total mi of perennial stream habitat immediately within the areas that would be 

considered for leasing under Alternative 4. When a 2-mi buffer around the areas that would 

become available for application for leasing is considered, there are 20 perennial streams and 

about 185 mi of perennial stream habitat under Alternative 1, and 20 streams and 188 total mi of 

stream habitat under Alternative 4 (Table 6.2.1-5). There are 8 perennial streams and about 

9 total mi of perennial stream habitat immediately within the areas that would be considered for 

leasing under Alternative 2. When a 2-mi buffer around the areas that would become available 

for application for leasing is considered, there are 13 perennial streams and about 127 mi of 

perennial stream habitat under Alternative 2. Under Alternative 3, no perennial stream habitat is 

located immediately within areas that would be made available for application for leasing or 

within 2 mi of the lease area (Table 6.2.1-5). The specific nature and magnitude of impacts under 

the alternatives, as well as the specific resources affected, would depend on the location of the 

areas where project construction and facilities occur, the aquatic resources present in those areas, 

and the mitigation measures implemented. 

6.2.5.7.2 Plant Communities and Habitats. The identification of areas available for 

application for leasing for commercial tar sands development and the associated amendment of 

appropriate land use plans would not affect plant communities and habitats in the areas available 

for application for leasing under any of the alternatives. However, under all four alternatives, 

plant communities and habitats could be affected by future construction and operation of 

commercial tar sands projects in the areas available for application for leasing, as described in 

Section 5.8.1.2. These impacts would be considered in greater detail in project-specific NEPA 

analyses that would be conducted at the commercial lease and development phases of projects. 

The types of impacts associated with construction and operations would be similar for all 

alternatives. Potential impacts on plant communities and habitats from future project 

construction and operation would be identical among the alternatives for similar projects located 

in areas common to the two alternatives (i.e., in areas where these alternatives overlap). 

 Because of the difference in the acreages identified under the alternatives as available for 

application for leasing, plant communities and habitats could be affected by future commercial 

development at more locations under Alternatives 1 and 4 than under the other alternatives. 

Alternative 1 identifies 430,686 acres as available for application for commercial leasing. 

Included in this acreage are about 6,874 acres of land identified in land use plans for the 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-477 

protection of riparian habitats, floodplains, and special status plant species. In contrast, about 

300,000 acres of land identified under Alternative 1 would be excluded from availability for 

leasing under Alternative 2. Of the 129,567 acres available for application for commercial 

leasing under this alternative, 2,175 acres are identified for protection of floodplains, riparian 

habitats, and special status plant species. About 4,896 acres of land identified under Alternative 1 

(including 15 acres identified for protection of floodplains) would be excluded from availability 

for leasing under Alternative 4. Of the 435,369 acres available for application for commercial 

leasing under Alternative 4, about 7,403 acres are identified for the protection of riparian habitat, 

floodplains, and special status plant species. 

 Oil shale endemic plant species occur on oil shale outcrops within the available lease 

areas identified under Alternatives 1, 2, and 4. Because Alternatives 1 and 4 include more land 

area in the vicinity of oil shale outcrops than Alternative 2, there is a greater potential for impacts 

on oil shale endemic species under Alternatives 1 and 4. 

 Many ACECs located within or near the STSAs include rare plant species and/or rare or 

important plant communities. Under Alternative 1, one such ACEC is partially included within 

the footprint of lands available for application for leasing (Table 6.2.5-2). Direct and/or indirect 

impacts could occur within this ACEC, although stipulations addressing sensitive resources 

apply to this area. Six additional ACECs are located adjacent to or near (within 5 mi) the 

Alternative 1 footprint and could be impacted indirectly; impacts would generally decrease with 

increasing distance. Five ACECs are located adjacent to or near the Alternative 2 footprint, and 

seven ACECs are located adjacent to or near the Alternative 4 footprint. Sensitive plant species 

or communities within these ACECs could be impacted indirectly. No ACECs are located 

adjacent to or near the Alternative 3 footprint. 

6.2.5.7.3 Wildlife. There would be no impacts on wildlife species associated with 

identifying lands as available for application for commercial tar sands leasing. Impacts could 

result, however, from post-lease construction and operation as described in Section 5.8.1.3. 

These impacts would be considered in greater detail in project-specific NEPA analyses that 

TABLE 6.2.5-2 ACECs with Sensitive Plant Species and/or Sensitive Plant Communities 

in or near Lands Available for Lease Application under the Tar Sands Alternatives 

Distance from Footprint (mi) 

ACEC Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 

 

Red Mountain-Dry Fork 3.1 >5 mi >5 mi 3.1 

Raven Ridge 1.9 2.3 >5 mi 1.9 

Pariette Wetlands Adjacent 0.8 >5 mi Adjacent 

Nine Mile Canyon Within Adjacent >5 mi Adjacent 

Cottonwood-Diamond Watershed 0.6 >5 mi >5 mi 0.6 

San Rafael Reef Adjacent 0.1 >5 mi Adjacent 

Leers Canyon Adjacent 2.9 >5 mi Adjacent 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-478 

would be conducted at the commercial lease and development phases of projects. The types of 

impacts on wildlife species associated with construction and operation would be similar for all 

alternatives. Differences among alternatives result from the amount of lands that would be made 

available for application for leasing and the location of areas protected from lease development. 

These differences are described in this section. 

 Impacts on wildlife and their habitats (see Section 5.1.8.3) would be identical under all 

four alternatives for similar projects located in areas common to the alternatives (i.e., in areas 

where land available for development overlap). Because of the difference in the acreages 

identified under the alternatives as available for application for leasing, wildlife and their habitats 

could be affected by subsequent commercial development at more locations under Alternatives 1 

and 4 than under the other two alternatives. Alternative 1 identifies 430,686 acres as available for 

application for leasing; Alternative 2 identifies 129,567 acres as available for application for 

leasing; Alternative 3 identifies 2,100 acres as available for application for leasing; and 

Alternative 4 identifies 435,369 acres as available for application for leasing. Wildlife and their 

habitats in these areas could be impacted by the construction and operation of commercial tar 

sands projects. 

 Table 6.2.5-3 shows the comparison among the four alternatives in the amount of wildlife 

habitat identified for protection by stipulations identified in BLM RMPs. Table 6.2.5-4 shows the 

acreage of state-identified mule deer and elk habitat present in the tar sands lease areas identified 

under the four alternatives. 

6.2.5.7.4 Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species. The amendment of land use 

plans to identify areas available for application for leasing for commercial tar sands development 

would not affect threatened and endangered species in the areas available for application for 

leasing identified under any of the four alternatives. However, under all alternatives, threatened 

and endangered species and their habitats could be affected if the construction and operation of 

commercial tar sands projects occur in the lease areas in the future. 

 Of the four alternatives under consideration, the least amount of land would be available 

for application for commercial leasing under Alternative 3 (2,123 acres), an intermediate amount 

under Alternative 2 (129,567 ), and the most under Alternatives 1 (430,686 acres) and 4 

(435,369 acres). The difference in acreage results in a potential difference in the number of 

threatened and endangered species that could occur in the STSAs. 

 There are 71, 63, 36, and 66 federal candidate, BLM-designated sensitive, or other 

special status species that potentially occur in areas that are available for application for leasing 

under Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively. There are 21, 21, 8, and 23 federally listed species 

that potentially occur in areas that are available for leasing under Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4, 

respectively (Table 6.2.5-5). 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-479 

TABLE 6.2.5-3 Wildlife Habitat Protected by Stipulations in BLM RMPs within the 

Alternative 1, 2, 3, and 4 Tar Sands Lease Areas 

Area of Habitat (acres) 

Habitat Description Alternative 1a Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4a

 

Birds 

Raptor nesting areas 7 0 0 5 

 

Mammals 

Elk crucial winter range 112,809 0 0 112,809 

Elk calving habitat 26,804 0 0 26,804 

Mule deer crucial winter range 96,564 0 0 96,564 

Mule deer fawning habitat 23,584 0 41 23,584 

Mule deer migration corridor 41,588 0 0 41,588 

a Acreages may be overestimated because of the unknown degree of habitat overlap among species 

or habitat types for a species. For these reasons, columns should not be totaled. 

TABLE 6.2.5-4 State-Identified Elk and Mule Deer Habitat Present in the 

Tar Sands Lease Areas Identified under Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4 

Area of Habitat (acres) 

Habitat 

Description Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 

 

Mule Deer 

Winter habitat 228,122 93,285 1,729 228,985 

Summer habitat 77,172 17,345 0 80,828 

 

Elk 

Winter habitat 194,354 87,933 0 200,224 

Summer habitat 65,366 17,412 0 67,469

 Alternatives differ in the amount of critical habitat for the Mexican spotted owl that is 

contained within areas available for application for commercial leasing. There are approximately 

2,200 acres, 471 acres, and 27,200 acres of critical habitat for the Mexican spotted owl 

associated with Alternatives 1, 2, and 4, respectively. There are no critical habitats associated 

with Alternative 3 (Table 6.2.5-5). The amount of core and priority habitats for the greater sagegrouse also differs by alternative. The greatest amount of core and priority habitat for the greater 

sage-grouse is associated with Alternative 4 (87,900 acres); there are intermediate amounts of 

core and priority habitats associated with Alternatives 1 and 3 (86,057 acres and 2,100 acres, 

respectively). There are no core and priority habitats for the greater sage-grouse associated with 

the lands available under Alternative 2 (Table 6.2.5-5). 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-480 

TABLE 6.2.5-5 Threatened and Endangered Species and Selected Habitats Present in 

Potential Lease Sale Areas That Could Be Affected by Future Commercial Tar Sands 

Development 

Resource That Could Be Affected 

by Development in the STSAs Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 

 

Number of federal candidates, BLMdesignated sensitive species, and other 

special status species 

71 63 36 66 

 

Number of federally listed species 21 21 8 23 

Acres of critical habitat for the 

Mexican spotted owl 

2,200 471 0 27,200 

Acres of core and priority habitat areas 

for the greater sage-grouse 

86,057 0 2,100 87,900 

6.2.5.8 Visual Resources 

 Under all alternatives, the amendment of land use plans to identify areas available for 

application for leasing for commercial tar sands development would not affect visual resources 

within or in the vicinity of the lease areas identified. However, a number of potential sensitive 

visual resources are present within, and in the vicinity of, the potential lease areas identified by 

the alternatives. These sensitive visual resource areas could be affected if construction and 

operation of commercial tar sands projects occur in the future in the areas identified as available 

for commercial leasing. 

 The visual resources that could be affected by the future construction and operation of 

commercial tar sands projects would be identical under the alternatives for similar projects 

located in potential lease areas common to the alternatives (i.e., where the lease areas would 

overlap). Under Alternative 1, 430,686 acres of public land would remain available for 

application for commercial tar sands leasing. Under Alternative 4, the BLM would designate 

435,369 acres available for application for leasing, or 4,683 more acres than the 430,686 acres 

available under Alternative 1. While Alternative 4 has more acres of land than Alternative 1, 

there is relatively little difference between the alternatives in the number and types of sensitive 

visual resource areas that could be affected by future commercial development. 

 Under Alternative 2, the BLM would designate 129,567 acres of public land available for 

application for commercial tar sands leasing, about 300,000 fewer acres than under Alternative 1 

and about 306,000 fewer acres than under Alternative 4. Thus the numbers of sensitive visual 

resource areas that could be affected by future commercial development in or near these lands 

would be expected to be much smaller under Alternative 2 than under Alternative 1 or 4. 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-481 

 Under Alternative 3, the BLM would designate only about 2,100 acres of public land 

available for application for commercial tar sands leasing, about 429,000 acres less than under 

Alternative 1, about 127,000 fewer acres than under Alternative 2, and about 306,000 fewer 

acres than under Alternative 4. Thus the number of sensitive visual resource areas that could be 

affected by future commercial development in or near these lands would be expected to be 

extremely small under Alternative 3 relative to Alternative 1, 2, or 4. 

6.2.5.9 Cultural Resources 

 Table 6.2.5-6 identifies the amount of available acreage that has the potential to contain 

important cultural resources under each of the alternatives. Under Alternative 1, 66,130 acres of 

the 430,686 acres available for application for commercial leasing have been surveyed for 

cultural resources. This acreage includes existing ACECs not closed to mineral development that 

contain important cultural resources. Adverse effects on cultural resources, as described in 

Sections 4.10 and 6.1.2, could occur in these areas as a result of future commercial development. 

 Alternative 2 excludes areas with sensitive resources and special designations from 

consideration, resulting in 129,567 acres being available for application for leasing and 

development. Approximately 18,139 acres of the area identified under Alternative 2 have been 

surveyed for cultural resources. These surveys found 273 sites. 

TABLE 6.2.5-6 Available Acreage under Each Alternative with the Potential to Contain 

Cultural Resources 

Parameter Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 

 

Acres available for application for 

leasing and development 

430,686 129,567 2,100 435,369

 

Acres surveyeda 66,130 18,139 150 67,700 

 

Percentage of area surveyed 15% 14% 7% 16%

 

Number of sites recorded 860 273 9 706 

 

Acres of high or medium 

sensitivity to contain cultural 

resources 

221,726 78,618 NAb 223,167 

 

Percentage of area with high or 

medium sensitivity 

51% 71% NA 51% 

a This acreage is from block acre surveys only and does not include linear miles of survey. 

b NA = not applicable. 

 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-482 

 Under Alternative 3, 2,100 acres in the Asphalt Ridge STSA in Utah could be impacted 

by the pending tar sands lease or any future lease in this area. Cultural resource surveys have 

examined only 150 acres (7%) of this area. Nine archaeological sites are reported in the Asphalt 

Ridge STSA but not within the Alternative 3 area (Section 6.2.3.9). Mitigation may be required 

to be applied in the development of these projects should significant cultural resources be 

encountered. Therefore, most of the possible adverse effects on cultural resources are expected to 

be mitigated. Any impacts from the pending tar sands lease activities, or future lease activities in 

this area, as well as the mitigation measures, would also occur under the other alternatives. 

 Under Alternative 4, the amount of acreage nominally available for application for 

commercial leasing is increased from that of Alternative 1 to 435,369 acres. The amount of land 

surveyed for cultural resources under Alternative 4 is comparable to that under Alternative 1. 

The relative amount of survey for Alternative 4 is 16%, while Alternative 1 has 15% of the area 

surveyed. Therefore, based on current information, the potential for effects on cultural resources 

is expected to be similar under Alternatives 1 and 4. Alternatives 2 and 3 offer the greatest 

protection to cultural resources within the study areas. 

6.2.5.10 Indian Tribal Concerns 

 The types of impacts on resources important to Native Americans would be similar under 

all four tar sands alternatives. The variation would be mostly in scale. Archaeological sites 

associated with Native Americans and features such as rock art would be identified in cultural 

resources surveys. Table 6.2.5-5 shows how much land with a high or medium sensitivity for 

cultural resources would be available for application for leasing in each alternative. Broadly 

speaking, the more culturally sensitive land that is available for application for leasing, the 

higher the probability that resources important to Native Americans could be potentially 

impacted. As shown in Table 2.4.2-1, the largest amount of land would be available under the 

No Action Alternative (Alternative 1). Alternative 4 (Moderate Development) makes a similar 

amount available, while Alternative 2 (Conservation Focus) would make less than a third of the 

amount available under Alternatives 1 and 4 available for application for leasing. The least land 

would be made available under Alternative 3 (Pending Commercial Lease). Conversely, the most 

proactive protection of lands through special designation and attendant use restrictions would 

occur under Alternative 2. Fewer lands are protected by exclusion under Alternatives 1 and 4. 

Alternative 1 restricts exclusions to those in the current land use plans, while Alternative 4 would 

exclude all ACEC acreage, including that identified since the 2008 OSTS PEIS and ROD. All 

proposed tar sands extraction technologies would involve widespread surface disturbance. 

Surface mining, with the highest potential for disturbing resources important to Native 

Americans, would be considered under all alternatives with the possible exception of 

Alternative 3. Under all alternatives, project-specific NEPA evaluations and NHPA Section 106 

surveys would be required, along with their attendant consultation requirements. These 

procedures and other BLM regulations would ensure that Native Americans would be given an 

opportunity to identify culturally important resources and propose means of eliminating or 

mitigating adverse impacts; this could result in lease stipulations specific to the parcels being 

considered for leasing and in avoidance and/or protection of culturally important resources 

through changes in design and development plans. 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-483 

6.2.5.11 Socioeconomics 

 Alternative 4, with 435,369 acres, would make the greatest amount of land available for 

application for leasing, and Alternative 3, with 2,100 acres, the least amount of land. 

Alternative 1, with 430,686 acres, would provide nearly as many acres as Alternative 4, while 

Alternative 2, with 129,567 acres, would provide an intermediate amount of land available for 

leasing. However, because of the need for project- and site-specific information, it is not possible 

to identify the nature and magnitude of socioeconomic or transportation impacts of commercial 

tar sands development under Alternatives 1 through 4. Thus, it is not possible to differentiate 

among these alternatives regarding either socioeconomic or transportation impacts. 

 Also, since none of the alternatives impose a cap on the level of development that may 

occur, the level of future development could be the same under each alternative. 

6.2.5.12 Environmental Justice 

 Because it is not possible to quantify the environmental justice impacts of the commercial 

development that would be made possible under any alternative at this time, it is not possible to 

definitively conclude which of these alternatives would result in the greatest impacts. 

6.2.5.13 Hazardous Materials and Waste Management 

 The amendment of land use plans to identify areas available for application for leasing 

for commercial tar sands development would not result in hazardous material and waste being 

generated within or in the vicinity of the areas available for application for leasing under 

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4. However, the construction and operation of commercial tar sands 

projects in the areas available for application for leasing would use hazardous materials and 

generate wastes under all alternatives. 

 Because the use of hazardous materials and the generation of wastes are related to the 

specific design of a commercial tar sands project rather than project location, it is not possible to 

differentiate among all four alternatives as to the hazardous materials and waste that could be 

used or generated during commercial tar sands construction and operation. For similar 

commercial tar sands projects (similar in design and operation), the hazardous materials and 

wastes associated with projects developed under all alternatives would be similar. Because of the 

larger amount of land that would be made available for leasing under Alternatives 1 and 4, the 

use and/or generation of hazardous materials and wastes could occur at more locations under 

Alternatives 1 and 4 than under Alternatives 2 and 3. For a given tar sands development, the 

impacts of hazardous material and waste handling (storage, use, and disposal) would be expected 

to be similar under all alternatives regardless of project location (Section 5.13.1). 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-484 

6.2.5.14 Health and Safety 

 The amendment of land use plans to identify areas available for application for leasing 

for commercial tar sands development also would not result in health and safety issues within or 

in the vicinity of the areas identified as available for application for leasing under Alternatives 2 

through 4. The future construction and operation of commercial tar sands projects, however, 

would have identical health and safety concerns under all alternatives for projects with identical 

plans of development located in potential lease areas common to the alternatives (i.e., where the 

areas would overlap). Potential impacts could occur from accidents causing injuries and 

fatalities, possible hearing loss from high noise levels, and inhalation of particulates and/or 

VOCs emitted from the facilities. Construction and operation of individual facilities under any 

alternative statistically would be expected to result in less than 1 fatality per year, and 

approximately 100 injuries per year during construction and 30 injuries per year during 

operations. The general public could have health impacts associated with exposure to emissions 

from tar sands facilities, but in the absence of site-specific and process-specific data, no 

differences among the health and safety impacts of all four alternatives can be identified. 

 Differences in health and safety concerns among the four alternatives would be largely 

associated with differences in individual project designs and, to a lesser degree, differences in the 

locations of individual projects. For example, projects requiring longer transportation routes and 

longer utility and pipeline ROWs would have a greater potential for transportation accidents as 

well as ROW construction-related accidents. It is not possible to quantify differences in health 

and safety impacts under Alternatives 1, 2, 3, or 4 in this PEIS. Under any of the alternatives, 

health and safety issues would be evaluated at the project level (i.e., as part of project-specific 

NEPA analyses), and comprehensive facility health and safety plan and worker safety training 

would be required as part of the plan of development for every proposed commercial 

tar sands project. 

6.2.6 Cumulative Impacts 

 In its regulations implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA (40 CFR 

Part 1508.7), the CEQ (1997) defines cumulative effects as follows: 

“the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the 

proposed action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person 

undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually 

minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time.” 

 The proposed action analyzed in this PEIS is to amend land use plans to allow certain 

lands to be considered for commercial leasing for tar sands development and identify certain 

lands as being excluded from such future consideration. That is, the decision made at the plan 

level does nothing more than remove (or leave in place) the administrative barrier (plan 

conformance) to the BLM considering any applications for leasing. The plan amendments would 

open the areas in question for leasing. The phrase “available for application for leasing” is used 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-485 

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 NEPA analysis would 

be required prior to the issuance of any lease of oil shale or tar sands resources. Amendment of 

the RMPs does not authorize any ground-disturbing activities and is not an irreversible or 

irretrievable commitment of resources under NEPA (see 40 CFR 1502.16). Moreover, 

amendment of RMPs does not constitute the granting of any property right. In this respect, the 

limited scope and scale of the proposed action of amending the land use plans—and any 

potential environmental impacts of these amendments—necessarily results in the need for only a 

limited cumulative effects analysis in this PEIS. Analysis of the cumulative effects in this PEIS 

will be qualitative to reflect the limited and highly speculative character of the information 

available, and the limited nature of the decision to be made on the basis of this PEIS.37 At the 

leasing decision and at the decision to approve a plan of development, more specific cumulative 

effects analyses would be appropriate, and such analysis would be able to be completed because 

specific technical and environmental information for those analyses should be available. 

 As stated above and in Sections 6.2.2 and 6.2.3, with the possible exception of a change 

in local property values, there would be no environmental or socioeconomic impacts under 

Alternative 2, 3, or 4 from the amendment of land use plans to identify lands as available or not 

available for application for commercial tar sands leasing. Therefore, there would be no 

cumulative impacts from these alternatives. However, direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts 

could occur as a result of future commercial tar sands development that could be facilitated by 

such land use plan amendments. The focus of this cumulative impacts assessment, then, is the 

impacts from this future development, rather than the impacts from the land use plan amendment 

decision. That is, the purpose of this cumulative impacts assessment is to discuss, in a qualitative 

way, how the environmental and socioeconomic conditions within the study area might be 

incrementally affected over the next 20 years (the study period) by tar sands development that 

could occur on lands made available for application for commercial leasing by the land use plan 

amendments under any of Alternatives 1 through 4. 

 This section describes, in a preliminary way, the possible cumulative impacts of potential 

commercial tar sands development that could occur over the next 20 years. More specific 

information regarding impacts, including cumulative impacts, would be provided by the analysis 

conducted at any future leasing stage and at the review of any project-specific plan of 

development. The impacts presented here are in the context of other major activities in the study 

areas on both BLM-administered and nonfederal lands that could also affect environmental 

resources and the socioeconomic setting. The cumulative impacts assessment also would be 

applicable for tar sands development that could occur on CHL leases. The study areas considered 

usually include the lands managed by a BLM field office that contain tar sands resources and the 

ROI counties associated with them, as defined in Table 3.10.2-1. Larger areas are considered for 

certain resources (e.g., land, air, and water). This section considers five major categories of 

activities that could have cumulative impacts: oil and gas development, coal mining and 

 

37 Oil shale and tar sands development could not occur until a leasing decision has been made and implemented 

(leases issued). After leases are issued, additional permits and environmental analysis would be required before 

operations could begin. 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-486 

preparation, other minerals development, energy infrastructure development, and other activities 

(e.g., tar sands development, grazing, fire management, forestry, and recreation). Section 6.2.6.3 

presents the possible cumulative impacts of potential commercial tar sands development that 

could occur under each of the alternatives and addresses the same resources analyzed in 

Sections 5.2 through 5.14. 

 The current status of resources (including past and present actions) is described in 

Chapter 3. This section focuses on the cumulative impacts of the possible tar sands development 

that could occur under Alternatives 1 through 4, when added to a set of reasonably foreseeable 

future actions that are projected to occur or that could occur over the next 20 years (as described 

in Section 6.2.6.2). These projections were drawn from a variety of sources, as indicated in the 

text, but include developments on both BLM-administered and nonfederal lands. The accuracy of 

such projections is greatest during the first few years of the 20-year period and decreases over 

the time frame assessed. In particular, future levels of tar sands development are unknown. For 

the purposes of analysis, this cumulative impacts assessment looks at the incremental impacts of 

a single tar sands facility (as described in Section 5.1), recognizing that more than one of these 

facilities may be brought into operation during the study period. While the cumulative impacts 

described in this section represent an initial estimate of impacts for activities projected to occur 

in the 20-year time frame, the assessment would require reevaluation if the planned level of 

development changes drastically in the future. 

 However, because under all alternatives, there is a lack of information on the magnitude 

of future actions on public land, the number of projects that might be undertaken, and the likely 

locations for future development, the magnitude of the differences among the cumulative effects 

of the alternatives cannot be identified (i.e., the same level of future development might occur 

under each alternative). 

6.2.6.1 Overview of Assumptions and Impact-Producing Factors of Major Activities 

in the Study Area 

6.2.6.1.1 Oil and Gas Development. For both federal and nonfederal lands, oil and gas 

development is associated with impact-producing factors in resource areas such as water use, the 

production of wastes and water, contaminant emissions to air and water, the use and alteration of 

land, and potential oil spills. The environmental impacts of oil and gas drilling are highly 

variable and depend on the depth of drilling, drilling methods used, and whether multiple wells 

per drill pad are constructed. Table 6.2.6-1 summarizes the estimated impacts of oil and gas 

drilling on a per-well basis for select resource areas. 

 Rough estimates of overall resource requirements for oil and gas drilling are available 

from several sources. The BLM is continuing to improve the way it manages oil and gas 

operations, in particular, establishing BMPs to minimize environmental effects. Many of these 

specific mitigation measures reduce surface impacts and are applied as conditions of approval 

prior to operations on a lease. For wells on federal lands, the amount of surface disturbance for 

each well has been decreasing from about 3 to 1.5 acres per well or less. It is expected that 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-487 

TABLE 6.2.6-1 Assumptions Associated with Oil and Gas Drilling 

Impact-Producing Factor 

Values Used in 

Impact Analysis

(per well drilled) Reference 

 

Surface disturbance (acres) 2.515 Thompson 2006a; DOE 2006; 

BLM 1994, 2002a, 2005a, 2006i 

Water use (ac-ft/yr) 0.55 BLM 2006i 

Drilling waste (bbl) 4,100 DOE 2006 

Regulated emissions (CO, SO2, NOx) (tons) 0.37 DOE 2006 

CO2 emissions (tons) 97 DOE 2006 

Other nonregulated emissions (CH4, 

non-CH4 hydrocarbons) (tons) 

0.17 DOE 2006 

Amount of oil spilled (gal) 24 DOE 2006 

Employment (direct FTEs) 3 BLM 2006i 

standard industry practices in accordance with existing regulations are used for installation of oil 

and gas wells on private lands. For the purpose of analysis, it is assumed that the amount of land 

disturbed for oil and gas well installation on either federal or nonfederal lands varies from 2.5 to 

15 acres per well. The higher end of the range is certainly an overestimate in locations where 

multiwell pads would be used (e.g., the Roan Plateau amendments call for 17 wells per pad atop 

the plateau) (BLM 2006i). In addition, only about 60% of the initially disturbed area would have 

long-term surface disturbance; the other 40% generally would be revegetated within 2 years 

(BLM 2006i). 

6.2.6.1.2 Coal Mining and Preparation. Impact-producing factors for coal mining and 

preparation (e.g., removal of sulfur) on either federal or nonfederal lands include water use, 

contaminant emissions to air and water, use and alteration of land, and occupational hazards. 

These factors are discussed in DOE (1988) and summarized for select resource areas in 

Table 6.2.6-2. As is the case with oil and gas operations, the BLM is improving its management 

of coal operations by establishing BMPs to minimize environmental effects. Many specific 

mitigation measures reduce surface impacts and are applied as conditions of approval prior to 

operations on a lease.

6.2.6.1.3 Other Minerals Development. Although several metals and minerals 

materials are mined in Utah, most are not mined in the counties that might experience tar sands 

development. The predominant materials currently mined in these areas are sand and gravel. 

 Sand and gravel deposits are found in river and stream terraces, floodplains, and 

channels, both current and ancient. These deposits are a type of salable mineral. Extraction of 

instream sand and gravel deposits could result in adverse environmental impacts, such as 

changes in streamflow and increased turbidity, which would affect fisheries and recreational use. 

Extraction of sand and gravel from floodplains or low terraces could create new channels and 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-488 

TABLE 6.2.6-2 Assumptions Associated with Coal Mining and 

Preparationa

Values Used in Impact Analysis 

Impact-Producing Factor 

Per Million Tons 

Surface Mined 

Per Million Tons 

Underground Mined 

 

Surface disturbance (acres) 

Areas for facilities 4.3 4 

Strip mining 20 NAb

Waste storage 2.6 1 

 

Water use (million gal) 

Coal preparation 20 20 

Dust control 35 35 

 

Air emissions (tons)c 

CO 15 6.3 

SO2 4.9 0.59 

NOx 76 d

Particulates 4 0.48

Fugitive duste 1,870 d

Hydrocarbons 4.8 0.48

Aldehyde 1.2 d

 

Diesel fuel use (103 gal) 3,021 38 

 

Electricity use (106 MWh) 6 39 

 

Employment (direct FTEs) 180 460 

 

Occupational hazards (deaths 

per 100,000 workers, disabling 

injuries per 100 workers) 

0.07, 8 0.37, 45 

a Coal is prepared to increase its quality and heating value by removing 

sulfur and ash-forming constituents. 

b NA indicates information not available. 

c Surface mining values are for the western United States; underground 

values are for the eastern United States. 

d Unquantified or negligible. 

e Based on estimates for an Illinois surface mine with the following 

controls: paved access roads, watered and unpaved haul roads, and 

enclosed coal dumps with baghouse. Without these controls, estimated 

fugitive dust emissions would be 3,030 tons. 

Source: DOE (1988). 

 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-489 

alter sediment deposition, again adversely affecting the ecology of the nearby river or stream. 

Other general impacts from sand and gravel mining could include land disturbance, changes in 

groundwater quality, noise, dust, and visual changes. The proper management of sand and gravel 

mining and the application of mitigation could decrease impacts such that there would be 

minimal adverse impacts. For example, siting mining locations high up in the landscape (on 

floodplains and terraces rather than in stream channels) would decrease adverse impacts on 

stream hydrologic processes (Langer 2002). 

 Other materials mined in on near the potential tar sands development area include clay, 

gilsonite, gold, sandstone, sodium minerals, and uranium. These metals and minerals may be 

obtained through underground mining, surface (open pit) mining, or solution mining. Gold is 

mined by using both surface and underground methods. Mining of these substances can cause a 

variety of adverse environmental impacts, including the production of high volumes of solid and 

potentially hazardous waste; the contamination of surface water and groundwater; uncontrolled 

releases of produced water; land subsidence; physical instability of mine units; and air quality 

degradation, especially from particulate emissions. Uranium has an added potential for 

radiologically contaminating environmental media, leading to the subsequent possibility of 

exposures of biota and humans. 

 Metal mining historically has also caused contamination of surface water. The sources of 

contamination have included waste rock disposal, tailings, leaching sites (locations where 

valuable metals are collected by running solutions through the ore), and mine water. Depending 

on the local geology, the waste rock may contain other naturally occurring minerals that could be 

toxic to biota, including arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, iron, lead, manganese, mercury, 

and nickel. In addition, cyanide (a highly toxic substance composed of carbon and nitrogen) is 

used extensively in the mining industry to aid in metal extraction. Serious adverse impacts on 

surface water from metal mining have occurred when runoff from waste sources has entered 

nearby water bodies; these impacts have included degradation of aquatic habitat and 

contamination of drinking water supplies. Additional adverse impacts can occur as a result of 

erosion and increased sedimentation of surface water. 

 An environmental impact from metal mining is the large volume of waste generated. The 

product-to-waste ratio can be very high; for example, in gold mining, almost all the material 

removed from the earth (99.99%) is waste rock and tailings. Another area of concern is air 

quality degradation. Many metal mining operations generate large volumes of fugitive dust from 

ore crushing and loading, blasting, and, over time, from dried-up tailings ponds. 

 Many of the adverse impacts from mining discussed above occurred primarily in the past, 

and mitigation measures have been adopted to minimize their occurrence in present practice. 

Because of the wide variety of possible contaminants and impacts from mining of metals and 

other minerals, generic impacts (e.g., on a “per-ton-mined” basis) are not discussed in this 

section. Cumulative impacts are discussed in Section 6.2.6.3 on the basis of the specific types of 

minerals being developed in each region. 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-490 

6.2.6.1.4 Energy Infrastructure Development. 

Energy Corridors. The western states have an extensive infrastructure of oil and gas 

pipelines and electricity transmission ROWs. Most of the existing ROWs cross public lands 

(National Energy Policy Development Group 2001). As of 2010, Colorado had 6,738, Utah had 

6,040, and Wyoming had 18,852 ROWs crossing public lands (BLM 2010a). These ROWs serve 

as either long-distance paths or subregional and local distribution lines. It is projected that the 

growing demand for additional energy and electricity will result in an increased number of 

ROWs across public lands in the future (National Energy Policy Development Group 2001). 

Other federal agencies authorized to grant ROWs for electric, oil, and gas transmission include 

the USFS, the NPS (electric only), the USFWS, the BOR, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. 

The BLM, along with DOE, issued a PEIS (DOE and DOI 2008) to support designation 

of public lands for potential use for long-distance energy transmission corridors in the West. This 

was an effort to expedite permitting of transmission systems, such as oil and gas pipelines and 

power lines (DOE and DOI 2008). The ROD for that PEIS (BLM 2009) designates federal 

energy corridors on public lands in areas that would be beneficial for energy development but 

excluded sensitive lands (such as National Parks and National Monuments, ACECs, and roadless 

areas) to the extent practicable. Consideration is given to the locations of tar sands deposits, and 

possible corridor locations have been designated relatively near to these areas for future use if 

the tar sands resource is developed. The designation of public lands for potential use in energy 

transmission ROWs as proposed under the West-wide Energy Corridor PEIS (DOE and 

DOI 2008) would not have direct impacts, with the possible exception of affecting current land 

use within the corridors and property values on private lands adjacent to or between corridor 

segments. 

 The eventual construction and operation of energy transmission ROWs, whether within 

federally designated energy corridors, within energy corridors on federal lands currently 

identified in land use plans, or at locations on nonfederal lands identified by industry and 

evaluated and authorized by appropriate federal agencies (e.g., BLM, USFS, and tribes), could 

result in adverse environmental impacts on federal and nonfederal lands. The specific types, 

magnitudes, and extent of project-specific impacts would be determined by the project type, that 

is, transmission line or pipeline and its length and location on federal and nonfederal lands; thus, 

the impacts could be evaluated only at the project level. However, general potential impacts 

typical of project construction and operation include the use of geologic and water resources; soil 

disturbance and erosion; degradation of water resources; localized generation of fugitive dust and 

air emissions from construction and operational equipment; noise generation; disturbance or loss 

of paleontological and cultural resources and traditional cultural properties; degradation or loss 

of fish and wildlife habitat; disturbance of resident and migratory fish and wildlife species, 

including protected species, degradation or loss of plant communities, increased opportunity for 

invasive vegetation establishment, alteration of visual resources, land use changes, accidental 

release of hazardous substances, and increased human health and safety hazards. Construction 

and operation of energy-transmission ROWs could also affect minority and low-income 

populations on both federal and nonfederal land as well as local and regional economies in the 

vicinity of the projects. 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-491 

Electric Power Plants. Impacts from coal-fired electric power generating plants include 

emissions of air pollutants, water use, production of large volumes of solid waste (e.g., coal 

combustion products [ash] and flue-gas cleanup waste), use and alteration of land, emissions and 

accidents associated with the transportation of raw materials and wastes, and socioeconomic 

impacts. Air emissions differ depending on the quality of feed coal utilized. Gas-fired power 

plants do not produce ash or significant wastes from flue gas cleanup, use less land, and have 

generally lower emissions of criteria pollutants and carbon dioxide per electric energy produced 

than do coal-fired plants. Electric power plants are generally sited on private lands. Table 6.2.6-3 

summarizes the estimated impacts on various resource areas from the construction and operation 

of electric power plants fueled by coal and by natural gas. In the near term, it is most likely that 

low-sulfur Wyoming coal would be utilized for power plants in the study area. Newly built 

plants are likely to be fueled by natural gas for the foreseeable future. In this PEIS, it is assumed 

that the tar sands projects considered under all alternatives would be powered from existing 

power plants. However, additional electric power might be required over the study period to 

support new development. 

 Renewable Energy. The BLM and USFS have proposed a program to facilitate 

geothermal leasing on lands administered by the BLM and the USFS that have geothermal 

potential in 12 western states, including Alaska. Under the proposal, the BLM and USFS would 

identify public and NFS lands with geothermal potential as being legally open or closed to 

leasing; issue or deny geothermal lease applications pending as of January 1, 2005; identify 

public lands that are administratively closed or open, and under what conditions; 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 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 2008g). A ROD for the program was issued in December 2008 

(BLM 2008h). 

 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 utilityscale 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 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) and the Supplement to the Draft Solar PEIS published in 

October (2011). 
TABLE 6.2.6-3 Assumptions Associated with Coal-Fired and Natural Gas–Fired Power Plants Assumed Values Impact-Producing Factor A 1,500-MW Coal-Fired Planta (BLM 2007d) A 360-MW Current Design Coal-Fired Plant and a 425-MW NSPS Plant (Spath et al. 1999) A 505-MW 

Plant and a 

(Spath 

Land use (acres) 3,000 total (includes construction acreage and 1,000 acres for storing combustion products) NA 130 acres (NE

Water use (ac-ft/yr) 8,000 ac-ft/yr NA 2,360–2,930 a

110–120 ac-ft/(Maulbetsch a

Fuel source and composition Wyoming-grade low-sulfur coal (0.47% sulfur, 6.4% ash); heat of combustion, 8,220 Btu/lbb (Ellis et al. 1999) Illinois No. 6 bituminous (4% sulfur, 0.1% chlorine, 1.1% nitrogen, 10% ash dry basis); heat of combustion, 10,800 Btu/lb Gas meeting U

Specifications 35.4 MJ/m3 [9

4.6 mg/m3 me

total sulfur, 1–

Fuel requirements 3.75 million tons/yr (2,330 tons/yr/MW)c Current plant, 1.6 million tons/yr 

(4,320 tons/yr/MW); NSPS plant, 1.7 tons/yr (3,950 tons/yr/MW) 

Current plant: (1,065 tons/yr/factor) 

Coal combustion products (ash)d

NA Current plant, ~36,000 kg/GWh; 

NSPS plant, ~33,000 kg/GWh 

Not applicable

Solid waste (flue-gas cleanup) 

NA Current plant, ~86,000 kg/GWh; 

NSPS plant, ~92,000 kg/GWh 

Small amount SCR unit ever

Emissions 

SO2 Meet NSPS standards, 258 g/GJ heat 

input (0.6 lb/million Btu) 

Current plant, 6,400 kg/GWh; NSPS plant, 2,229 kg/GWh 

Current plant: NSPS plant: 6
TABLE 6.2.6-3 (Cont.) Assumed Values Impact-Producing Factor A 1,500-MW Coal-Fired Planta (BLM 2007d) A 360-MW Current Design Coal-Fired Plant and a 425-MW NSPS Plantb (Spath et al. 1999) A 505-MW 

Plant and a 

(Spath 

NOx Meet NSPS standards, 258 g/GJ heat input (0.6 lb/million Btu) Current plant, 3,039 kg/GWh; NSPS plant, 2,041 kg/GWh 95 kg/GWh (S

NSPS plant: 6

CO NA Current plant, 134 kg/GWh; NSPS plant, 123 kg/GWh 27 kg/GWh CO2 NA Current plant, ~970,000 kg/GWh; NSPS plant, ~890,000 kg/GWh 371,200 kg/GW

Particulates Meet NSPS standards, 13 g/GJ heat input (0.03 lb/MMBtu) Current plant, 135 kg/GWh; NSPS plant, 123 kg/GWh 62 kg/GWh; NSPS plant: 9VOCs NA Current plant, 16 kg/GWh; 

NSPS plant, 14 kg/GWh 

10 kg/GWh (N

CO2e NA NA 372,200 kg/GW

Employment (direct FTEs)e Construction, 800 average over 4 yr 

(1,200 peak); operations, 135 

NA NA 

Transportation 12 trains/week; 100 cars/train; 

10,000 tons/train

1314 trains/week; 17 cars/train; 

1,445 tons/train

Pipeline 

Abbreviations: GTCC = greater than Class C; NA = information not available; NMHC = non-methane hydrocarbons; NSPS = new sostandard; SCR = selective catalytic converter. 

a Coal-fired power plants are assumed to operate at 60% capacity factor; thus, a 1,500-MW plant generates approximately 7,900 GW

generates 1,900 GWh/yr; and a 425-MW plant generates 2,200 GWh/yr. 

Footnotes continued on next page.
TABLE 6.2.6-3 (Cont.) b Representative data from Powder River Basin coal. Source: Ellis et al. (1999). c Sources for fuel requirement and transportation assumptions: Thompson (2006b). d Coal combustion products may not require disposal in landfills. The EPA sponsors a beneficial reuse program (EPA 2008). e Source for FTE employment values: Thompson (2006b). 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-495 

6.2.6.1.5 Other Activities. 

Oil Shale Development. This PEIS addresses the environmental and socioeconomic 

impacts of land use plan amendments and potential development for both oil shale and tar sands, 

and thus potential oil shale development must be considered in the cumulative impact assessment 

for tar sands development. Because the level of oil shale development over the next 20 years is 

unknown, this assessment has assumed that one oil shale facility could be constructed and 

operated in or near any one of the Utah STSAs during the study period. This oil shale facility 

could be on the PRLA associated with the Utah RD&D facility, on federal land within the 

footprint of all four oil shale Alternatives 1 through 4, or on nonfederal land. Impact-producing 

factors for such an oil shale facility include surface disturbance, water use, waste generation, and 

local changes in employment and population density. The assumptions used for these factors are 

given in Section 4.1. 

Grazing. Public and private lands in the study area are used extensively for livestock 

grazing. Environmental impacts of note associated with livestock grazing include potential 

degradation of soil, vegetation, wildlife habitat, and surface water quality (Krueger et al. 2002; 

BLM 2006k). For example, overgrazing could result in increased rates of erosion and topsoil 

losses. Allowing grazing during the nesting seasons of some species could result in trampling of 

the eggs and decreased viability of those species in the study area. Livestock could also degrade 

surface water quality if their manure and urine were deposited directly into the water or on land 

nearby. Good management practices can eliminate or mitigate many of these impacts. On BLM 

lands, grazing permits that are required specify the species allowed to graze, amount of grazing 

permitted, and other requirements to minimize environmental impacts. Today, the BLM manages 

livestock grazing in a manner aimed at achieving and maintaining public land health. To achieve 

desired conditions, the agency uses rangeland health standards and guidelines that the BLM 

developed in the 1990s with input from citizen-based Resource Advisory Councils across the 

West. Standards describe specific conditions needed for public land health, such as the presence 

of stream bank vegetation and adequate canopy and ground cover. Guidelines are the 

management techniques designed to achieve or maintain healthy public lands, as defined by the 

standards. These techniques include such methods as seed dissemination and periodic rest or 

deferment from grazing in specific allotments during critical growth periods. 

Fire Management. Fire management is used on public and private lands to aid in wildfire 

suppression. Underbrush is burned at regular intervals to avoid the buildup of large amounts of 

fuel on these lands. Fire is considered to have a natural role in the ecosystems and is used as a 

tool in managing those ecosystems. However, fires have potential environmental impacts that 

should be considered, particularly air quality impacts and impacts on threatened and endangered 

species (BLM 2005h). In general, impacts would be lower from more frequent, less intense, 

controlled fires than from infrequent wildfires. 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-496 

Forestry. In Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming, the BLM administers approximately 

14.2 million acres of forested lands of various types. Forested land is defined as being 10% 

stocked with live trees and at least 1 acre in size and 120 ft wide. A 2006 report on the status and 

condition of these forests states that the national priorities for them include “maintaining and 

restoring forest health, salvaging dead and dying timber, providing high-quality wildlife and fish 

habitat, and providing economic opportunities in rural communities by making timber and other 

forest products, including biomass, available from vegetation management treatments” 

(BLM 2006l). Management techniques for BLM-administered forest lands include grazing 

restrictions, selective thinning of undergrowth and dead wood, prescribed burns, and selective 

harvesting of trees. Adverse environmental impacts on air quality, water quality, habitat, and 

threatened and endangered species could occur as a result of these management practices. For 

example, increased erosion after land clearing could cause siltation in streams and decrease water 

quality. 

Recreation. One mission of the BLM is to accommodate recreational use of public lands, 

such as fishing, hiking, horseback riding, mountain biking, camping, and OHV use. However, 

these uses can have adverse environmental impacts. For example, OHV use can result in soil 

compaction, increased erosion, and the proliferation of non-native plant species. Overuse of trails 

in primitive areas can also result in erosion and disturbance of threatened and endangered species 

habitat. Other ways by which recreational visitors could affect the environment include 

producing waste, emitting air pollutants from motorized vehicles, and using water. However, 

recreational use also has benefits, including allowing visitors to enjoy outdoor wilderness areas 

and to reduce their stress, and stimulating economic growth in the area. The BLM works to 

minimize the adverse environmental impacts of recreational use by managing the activity. 

Examples of plan requirements include habitat improvement projects in recreational areas, 

construction of recreational use facilities that lead to decreased random use and degradation of 

wild areas, and waste management (BLM 2006m). 

6.2.6.2 Projected Levels of Major Activities in the Study Area 

Data on past, current, and planned future activities on BLM-administered lands and also 

on nonfederal lands were obtained from various BLM RMPs and EISs available through the field 

offices to obtain their best current estimates for projected activities in the areas of oil and gas 

development (both on public and private lands), coal development, other minerals development, 

energy development, and other activities (e.g., grazing, fire management, forestry, and 

recreation) over the 20-year time period between 2012 and 2032. Field office staff were also 

contacted. The projected levels of major activities in Utah are summarized in Table 6.2.6-4. 

6.2.6.2.1 Oil Shale and Tar Sands Development. As stated in Section 6.1.6.1.5, in the 

future one PRLA with an area of 4,960 acres may be eligible for oil shale development using 

underground mining techniques, based on the assumption that the RD&D leaseholder can meet 

requirements of the existing lease. In 2009, the BLM issued a second round of solicitations and 

received one new RD&D lease proposal for the Uinta Basin in Utah, which is currently being 
TABLE 6.2.6-4 Projected Levels of Major Activities for Seven Planning Areas Considered on BLM-Administered a

in the Cumulative Impacts Assessment for Tar Sands Development in Utaha Type of Activity Level of Activity Diamond Mountain (Western Half of Vernal PA) Book Cliffs (Eastern Half of Vernal PA) Henry Mountain (Southeast Portion of Richfield PA) San 

Oil Shale and Tar Sands Oil shale development on PRLA (federal lands) Potential for one underground mining project on 5,120 acres of PRLA; up to one additional RD&D project (total of 160 to 640 acres None Non

Oil shale and tar sands development on nonfederal lands Potential unknown Potential unknown Potential unknown Pote

Oil and Gas Recoverable oil and gas 

reserves 

NA NA NA NA 

Potential oil wells drilled per year over next 20 yr (2012

2032)b

270 wells (based on statistics for Duchesne County [Diamond Mountain Area] for 2008–2011 [State of Utah 2012]) 

90 wells (based on statistics for Uintah County [Book Cliffs Area] for 2008–2011 [State of Utah 2012]) 

30 wells total in RPA; 3 in HM only (includes oil, gas, and CBNG; based on 454 total over 15 yr [2005

2020]; 

3/yr in HM only, as projected by BLM [2005c]) 

Few on oprodthat prodfutuApp

Potential gas wells drilled per year over next 20 yr (2012

2032)b

147 wells (based on 4,035 total in VPA, 2,195 in DM only over 15 yr [2003

2017] 

as projected by BLM [2005b]) 

410 wells (based on statistics for Uintah County [Book Cliffs Area] for 2008–2011 [State of Utah 2012]) 

Included with potential oil wells drilled for HM PA 

55



CBN1,10[200BLM BLM 
TABLE 6.2.6-4 (Cont.) Type of Activity Level of Activity Diamond Mountain (Western Half of Vernal PA) Book Cliffs (Eastern Half of Vernal PA) Henry Mountain (Southeast Portion of Richfield PA) San Oil and Gas (Cont.) Potential CBNG wells drilled per year over next 20 yr (20122032)b 4 wells (based on 130 total in VPA, 50 in DM over 15 yr [20032017] as projected by BLM [2005b]) 6 wells (based on 130 total in VPA, 80 in BC over 15 yr [20032017] as projected by BLM [2005b]) Included with potential oil wells drilled for HM PA. HM coal field not likely to be developed for CBNG in the next 15 yr (20052020) (BLM 2005d) Incl

wellPA. Pric545 1,60Ferr5 yron mand (BL

Annual surface disturbance over next 20 yr (20122032) (acres/yr)c

1,0506,300 acres/yr total (6603,960 oil; 3702,200 gas; 1060 CBNG) 

1,2607,590 acres/yr total 

(2201,320 oil; 1,0256,150 

gas; 1590 CBNG) 

75450 RPA total; 945 HM 

(includes oil, gas, and CBNG) 

140

CBN

Wells to be abandoned annually over next 20 yr (20122032)d

57 wells total (19 oil; 37 gas; 1 CBNG) 

54 wells total (16 oil; 36 gas; 2 CBNG) 

8 wells in RPA total, 1 in HM (includes oil, gas, and CBNG) 

14

and 

Seismic exploration projectse

23 projects per year (based on 4575 total for Vernal, assume half in DM) over 15 yr [20032015] [BLM 2002a]); 200300 acres/yr disturbance 

23 projects per year (based 

on 4575 total for Vernal, assume half in BC) over 15 yr [20032015] [BLM 2002a]); 200300 acres/yr disturbance 

340 acres/yr disturbance (based on 5,100 total over 15 yr as projected by BLM [2005c]) 

150 (bas15 y[200
TABLE 6.2.6-4 (Cont.) Type of Activity Level of Activity Diamond Mountain (Western Half of Vernal PA) Book Cliffs (Eastern Half of Vernal PA) Henry Mountain (Southeast Portion of Richfield PA) San Coal Recoverable reserves (million tons) Tabby Mountain coal field: ~320 million tons (BLM 2002a) No known reserves (BLM 2002a) Includes south part of Wasatch Plateau Coal Field: ~6,000 million tons; HM Coal Field: 20 million tons (Jackson 2006); Emery Coal Field: reserve information not available Incl

WasFormFielFieltonsSect

Predicted production over next 20 yr (20122032) (million tons/yr) None (BLM 2002a) None (BLM 2002a) Wasatch Plateau Coal Field, 25; no production planned for HM (Jackson 2006); 

Emery Coal Field, no production information available 

Lila 

Hor24 Cha

Surface area potentially leasable (acres) 

NA None NA NA 

Surface mining area potentially disturbed annually (acres/yr) 

None None None Non

Surface area potentially disturbed for underground mining support facilities (total acres, 20122032)f

None projected None projected 500 acres Mos

thromethSect
TABLE 6.2.6-4 (Cont.) Type of Activity Level of Activity Diamond Mountain (Western Half of Vernal PA) Book Cliffs (Eastern Half of Vernal PA) Henry Mountain (Southeast Portion of Richfield PA) San Coal (Cont.) Other coal impacts None known None known None known Lila 

550 150roadinfraEIS operCreeif op250distu(BL

Other Minerals (e.g., phosphate, gilsonite, locatable minerals, salable minerals) 

Phosphate production over next 20 yr (20122032) 

5,800 acres on BLMadministered land; 14,000 acres on private land (BLM 1993, 2002a); assume 50% surface mining (i.e., 10,000 acres) 

None (BLM 2002a) None Non

Gilsonite production rate over next 20 yr (20122032) (tons/yr) 

None (BLM 2002a) 60,000 (based on BLM 

projections for 20032017) 

(BLM 2002a) 

None Non
TABLE 6.2.6-4 (Cont.) Type of Activity Level of Activity Diamond Mountain (Western Half of Vernal PA) Book Cliffs (Eastern Half of Vernal PA) Henry Mountain (Southeast Portion of Richfield PA) San Other Minerals (e.g., phosphate, gilsonite, locatable minerals, salable minerals) (Cont.) Locatable minerals (e.g., precious metals/gems, uranium, bentonite, gypsum, limestone, salt) Minor to no activity (BLM 2002a) Minor to no activity (BLM 2002a) Uranium/vanadium/gold/ copper, high potential for occurrence and development in HM area; exploration for economic quantities is continuing (BLM 2005d); one salt mine on west side of RPA to continue operations; 

gypsum and salt production unlikely in next 15 yr, especially in HM area (BLM 2005d) 

Gypsouthave deve(200Sectof a
TABLE 6.2.6-4 (Cont.) Type of Activity Level of Activity Diamond Mountain (Western Half of Vernal PA) Book Cliffs (Eastern Half of Vernal PA) Henry Mountain (Southeast Portion of Richfield PA) San Other Minerals (e.g., phosphate, gilsonite, locatable minerals, salable minerals) (Cont.) Salable minerals (gravel, sand, clay) Stone, 30 tons/yr (based on 60 tons/yr total for VPA, 20032017 (BLM 2002a); limestone, 30,000 tons/yr (based on USFS land production, most in DM (BLM 2002a); sand and gravel: some production, quantity unknown 

(BLM 2002a) 

Stone, 30 tons/yr (based on 60 tons/yr total for VPA, 20032017 (BLM 2002a); sand and gravel, some production, quantity unknown (BLM 2002a) 

For planning period of 20062020, 57 active sand 

and gravel disposal sites on BLM-administered land; likely to continue producing ~20,000 yd3/yr, additional 

sites on public land (BLM 2005d); assume 2 permits at 6 acres/permit, 12 acres/yr; clay, only smallscale development; stone, continue at current rate of about 11,000 tons/yr (BLM 2005d); humate production to continue on small scale at Factory Butte in HM (BLM 2005d) 

Clayminnext unliwou(BLSectgravhigh majodeve(BLSect

Energy Development 

Energy corridors NA NA NA NA Electric generating utilities 

NA NA NA NA 
TABLE 6.2.6-4 (Cont.) Type of Activity Level of Activity Diamond Mountain (Western Half of Vernal PA) Book Cliffs (Eastern Half of Vernal PA) Henry Mountain (Southeast Portion of Richfield PA) San Energy Development (Cont.) Existing power plants NA NA NA Hiaw

PlanDewCogfired HunplanempwatequalHun350 NOxuse (BL

Other 

Forestry NA NA NA Log

(not (BL
TABLE 6.2.6-4 (Cont.) Type of Activity Level of Activity Diamond Mountain (Western Half of Vernal PA) Book Cliffs (Eastern Half of Vernal PA) Henry Mountain (Southeast Portion of Richfield PA) San Other (Cont.) Fire management 5,500–7,800 acres/yr prescribed burns annually, based on 11,000 acres total in VPA as projected by BLM for 20022006 (BLM 2005b; Section 3.4) or 156,425 acres/decade total in VPA (BLM 2005b; Table 2.3) 5,5007,800 acres/yr prescribed burns annually (based on no action of 11,000 acres total in VPA projected by BLM for 20022006 (BLM 2005b; Section 3.4) and 156,425 acres/decade total in VPA (BLM 2005b; Table 2.3) NA One 

5,00on l(BLSect

Land and realty NA NA NA Utah 

Tranimpand GreFork of ncorrSect

Livestock NA NA NA NA 
TABLE 6.2.6-4 (Cont.) Type of Activity Level of Activity Diamond Mountain (Western Half of Vernal PA) Book Cliffs (Eastern Half of Vernal PA) Henry Mountain (Southeast Portion of Richfield PA) San Other (Cont.) Special management areas, recreation 427 mi/yr nonmotorized recreational trails and 54 mi/yr motorized trails would be developed total in VPA (between 2006 and 2020; BLM 2005b; Table 2.3); assume half in DM 427 mi/yr nonmotorized recreational trails and 54 mi/yr motorized trails would be developed total in VPA (between 2006 and 2020; BLM 2005b; Table 2.3); assume half in BC NA NA Vegetation 2,3003,400 acres/yr vegetation treated total in VPA (between 2006 and 

2020; BLM 2005b; Table 4.18.2); assume half in DM 

2,3003,400 acres/yr 

vegetation treated total in VPA (between 2006 and 2020; BLM 2005b; Table 4.18.2); assume half in BC 

NA NA 

Soils/watersheds NA NA NA NA 

Miscellaneous NA NA NA NA 
TABLE 6.2.6-4 (Cont.) Type of Activity Level of Activity San Juan (Area Similar to Monticello PA) Grand Staircase–Escalante MOab PA SOil Shale and Tar Sands Oil shale development on PRLAs (federal lands) None None None See 

Oil shale and tar sands development on nonfederal lands Potential unknown Potential unknown Potential unknown Pote

Oil and Gas Recoverable reserves NA >270 million bbl (Allison 1997) NA NA Potential oil wells drilled 

per year over next 20 yr (20122032)b

521 wells (includes gas, average of 13/yr, 195 total from 20062020 [Vanden Berg 2005a]) 

Few (only 47 exploratory wells currently in GSENM; ~ 200,000 acres of old leased land are under review) (BLM 1999) 

1240 wells (includes gas, average of 26/yr, 390 total from 20062020 [BLM 2005a]) 

400–year 

Potential gas wells drilled per year over next 20 yr (20122032)b

Included with potential oil wells drilled for San Juan PA 

None (BLM 1999) Included with potential oil 

wells drilled for MOAB PA 

610–per y

Potential CBNG wells drilled per year over next 20 yr (20122032)b

None (Vanden Berg 2005b) None (BLM 1999) 1 well (based on three 5-spot 

well clusters between 2006 and 2020 (Tabet 2005); assume same annual rate) 

11 Cyear 
TABLE 6.2.6-4 (Cont.) Type of Activity Level of Activity San Juan (Area Similar to Monticello PA) Grand Staircase–Escalante MOab PA SOil and Gas (Cont.) Annual surface disturbance over next 20 yr (20122032) (acres/yr)c 13320 (includes oil and gas) NA 33620 total (30600 oil and gas; 315 CBNG [similar to 225 total acres CBNG between 2006 and 2020]) (Tabet 2005) 2,60

Wells to be abandoned annually over next 20 yr (20122032)d 28 wells (includes oil and gas) (Vanden Berg 2005c) NA 620 wells (BLM 2005a) 140

per y

Seismic exploration projectse 150 acres/yr disturbance (based on 2,236 total over 

15 yr as projected by BLM [2005e]) 

NA 240 acres/yr disturbance 

(based on 3,600 total over 15 yr [20062020] as projected by BLM [2005a]) 

NA 

of tehabi

Coal 

Recoverable reserves (million tons) 

San Juan coal field (530,000 acres; 60% privately owned) (BLM 1991), 77 million tons available to surface mining; no current production because of poor quality/lack of rail transport (Vanden Berg 2005b) 

NA NA (Sego Formation 

produced ~3 million tons up through the 1950s) (Tabet 2005) 

~7.6 
TABLE 6.2.6-4 (Cont.) Type of Activity Level of Activity San Juan (Area Similar to Monticello PA) Grand Staircase–Escalante MOab PA SCoal (Cont.) Predicted production over next 20 yr (20122032) (million tons/yr) None (Vanden Berg 2005b) None (BLM 1999) None (Tabet 2005) 30

(appundefrom 

Surface area potentially leasable (acres) NA NA NA (Sego Formation may be attractive for future production because of low sulfur content, close to railway) NA Surface mining area 

potentially disturbed annually (acres/yr) 

NA NA NA NA 

Surface area potentially disturbed for underground mining support facilities (total acres, 20122032)f

None projected None projected None projected 1,00

Other coal impacts None known None known None known See 

Other Minerals (e.g., phosphate, gilsonite, locatable minerals, salable minerals) 

Phosphate production over next 20 yr (20122032) 

None (Vanden Berg 2005b) None (BLM 1999) None (Tabet 2005) 10,0

distu
TABLE 6.2.6-4 (Cont.) Type of Activity Level of Activity San Juan (Area Similar to Monticello PA) Grand Staircase–Escalante MOab PA SOther Minerals (e.g., phosphate, gilsonite, locatable minerals, salable minerals) (Cont.) Gilsonite production rate over next 20 yr (20122032) (tons/yr) None (Vanden Berg 2005b) None (BLM 1999) None (Tabet 2005) 60,0

(see 

Locatable minerals (e.g., precious metals/gems, uranium, bentonite, gypsum, limestone, salt) Uranium/vanadium, 4.2 million tons in reserves in Four Corners area, estimated disturbance of 20 acres/yr for next 15 yr (20052020) 

(Vanden Berg 2005b); gold, 520 acres total disturbed for next 15 yr in Recapture Creek and Johnson Creek (Vanden Berg 2005b); limestone, 20,00030,000 tons/yr, 

2050 acres total disturbed for next 15 yr (Vanden Berg 2005b) 

Uranium/vanadium, deposits present (Allison 1997), not to be developed (BLM 1999); alabaster, ongoing production of 300 tons/yr, from surface, not usually quarried 

Uranium/vanadium, >1 million tons ore reserves, estimated disturbance of 10 acres/yr for next 15 yr (20052020) (Tabet 2005); copper, Lisbon Valley Project, produce for 10 yr (20062015); disturb 110 acres/yr (1,103 total, includes 266-acre pad for leaching, processing plant, ponds, and 11-mi power line); salt/potash, 3.3 acres/yr (50 acres disturbance total over next 15 yr [20062020] 

Tabet 2005) 

Uranpotewith surfleaslime20 agypdevealabNA; distu110 at ledistu
TABLE 6.2.6-4 (Cont.) Type of Activity Level of Activity San Juan (Area Similar to Monticello PA) Grand Staircase–Escalante MOab PA SOther Minerals (e.g., phosphate, gilsonite, locatable minerals, salable minerals) (Cont.) Salable minerals (gravel, sand, clay) Sand and gravel, 4 permits/yr producing ~127,000 yd3/yr, 6 acres/permit, thus 24 acres/yr disturbed over next 15 yr (20052020) (BLM 2005f); building stone, 510 acres/yr over next 15 yr (20052020) (Vanden Berg 2005b) Sand and gravel, limited production for local use (Allison 1997) Sand and gravel, 4 permits/yr producing ~60,000 yd3/yr, 6 acres/permit, thus 24 acres/yr disturbed over next 15 yr (20052020) (Tabet 2005); building stone, ~0.5 acres/yr over next 15 yr (1 new facility, producing 5,00010,000 tons/yr for 5 yr 

between 2006 and 2020) (Tabet 2005) 

Sand 60 aat leclaydeve

Energy Development 

Energy corridors NA NA NA Esti

(370portexpetar s(DO

Electric generating utilities 

NA NA NA ~3,3

prodfrom 

Existing power plants NA None NA See 
TABLE 6.2.6-4 (Cont.) Type of Activity Level of Activity San Juan (Area Similar to Monticello PA) Grand Staircase–Escalante MOab PA SOther Forestry NA NA NA See 

Fire management NA NA NA NA 

pres

Land and realty NA NA NA See 

plan

Livestock About 1.8 million acres used for grazing (BLM 2008i) NA NA NA 

used Mon

Special management areas, recreation 

NA ~6 acres/yr disturbed (total of 

85 acres over 15 yr [20002014] for recreation and campsites) (BLM 1999) 

NA NA 

nonmcam

Vegetation NA 1,0003,000 acres/yr for 

vegetation restoration through burning (20,000 acres total for 20002014) 

NA At l

vegeburn

Soils/watersheds NA <1 acre/yr (10 sites at 

1 acre/site) (BLM 1999) 

NA NA 

distu
TABLE 6.2.6-4 (Cont.) Type of Activity Level of Activity San Juan (Area Similar to Monticello PA) Grand Staircase–Escalante MOab PA SOther (Cont.) Miscellaneous NA ~17 acres/yr for utility and road ROWs and communications sites (260 acres total over 15 yr [20002014]) (BLM 1999) NA NA 

distu

Abbreviations: ACEC = Area of Critical Environmental Concern; BC = Book Cliffs; BCF = billion cubic feet; CBNG = coal bed natuMountain; GSENM = Grand StaircaseEscalante National Monument; HM = Henry Mountain; NA = information not available; PA = RPA = Richfield Planning Area; SM = surface mining; SR = surface retort; UM = underground mining; USFS = Forest Service; VPA 

a The activities listed are those considered in addition to tar sands development on federal lands as described for all four alternatives

rounded to two significant figures.

b Includes projections for federal lands and, where available, nonfederal lands. c Assumes a range of 2.5 to 15 acres/well for well pads, roads, and pipelines (representative range based on 2.5 acres from DOE [20

Vernal Mineral Potential Report (BLM 2002a), and 15 acres from Moab PA (BLM 2005a). The 2.5- to 15-acre range encompasseSan Rafael of 7.9 acres/well plus 20 acres/ancillary facility (BLM 2004b, Appendix 21); Henry Mountain (4 acres/well plus 8 acre

(BLM 2005c); and Monticello (9.6 acres/well) (Vanden Berg 2005a).

d Generally assumes that 25% of new wells would be abandoned (based on estimate provided for the Rawlins Wyoming Field Offic

Assumes 50% for Moab (BLM 2005a) and 40% for Monticello (Vanden Berg 2005a). All surface disturbance is assumed to be recof abandonment.

e If information is not available, assume approximately 1 to 2 geophysical exploration projects/50 wells drilled annually (based on W

100 acres disturbed/project (this is short-term disturbance such as crushed vegetation, uprooted brush, and minor soil disturbance; unidentifiable within 1 yr). At 550 to 630 wells drilled per year, expect 11 to 26 projects/yr for Utah overall. 

f For areas where coal mining is ongoing and subsurface, a limited amount of surface disturbance over the 20-year study period was 

(i.e., 500 acres). 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-513 

evaluated. In addition, an unknown level of oil shale and tar sands development could occur on 

nonfederal lands in the future. 

 6.2.6.2.2 Oil and Gas Development. The largest amount of oil and gas development is 

projected for the Vernal Planning Area, about 920 wells per year; the total projected maximum 

number of new oil and gas wells for applicable field offices in the state is about 1,000 per year 

(see Table 6.2.6-4, which includes wells both on federal and nonfederal lands; projections for 

nonfederal lands are not available for all field offices). 

6.2.6.2.3 Coal Mining. The largest coal reserves are in the Henry Mountain Planning 

Area, with smaller amounts in the San Rafael Planning Area (Table 6.2.6-4). Predicted 

production for all field offices combined is about 30 to 34 million tons per year. About half of 

this production would be from surface mines, and half from underground mines. 

6.2.6.2.4 Other Minerals Development. Metals produced in Utah include copper 

(one mine), iron (two mines), phosphate (one mine), molybdenum (one mines), potash 

(three mines), silver (four mines), and uranium (one mine) (EPA 1997). In the ROI counties 

(Carbon, Duchesne, Emery, Garfield, Grand, San Juan, Uintah, and Wayne), only sand and 

gravel, gilsonite, clay, gypsum, dimension sandstone, lime, helium, and gold are produced 

(USGS 2004b). Phosphate production occurs in the Diamond Mountain area and gilsonite 

production in the Book Cliffs area. Uranium/vanadium has a high potential for development in 

the Henry Mountain and San Juan Planning Areas; it would result in at least 30 acres/yr of 

surface disturbance. A limited amount of other minerals development is expected 

(Table 6.2.6-4). Phosphate and other mineral mining have the potential to contribute as point 

sources to cumulative leachate loads of arsenic and selenium in the Colorado River basin, along 

with contributions from tar sands development, which could cumulatively affect birds and fishes. 

6.2.6.2.5 Energy Development. The DOE estimates that 690 mi of corridors could be 

sited on public lands in Utah, with a total surface area of 370,000 acres (DOE and DOI 2008). As 

of 2010, there were 6,040 existing ROWs crossing public lands in Utah (BLM 2010a). 

 Table 6.2.6-5 summarizes the electric generating units operating in oil shale ROI counties 

in Utah in 2008, including the primary fuel source for each plant and its electric power 

generating capacity. Of the 3,277 MW of nameplate power available from 15 generating units, 

98% was from nine coal-fired generators. As of 2000, there were also three new generating 

plants proposed for Utah, with a total capacity of 1,570 MW (EPA 2002). 

6.2.6.2.6 Other (Oil Shale Development, Grazing, Forestry, Fire Management, and 

Recreation). Potential oil shale development in Utah (whether on PRLAs, other federal lands, or 

nonfederal lands) could affect development of tar sands resources. The assumptions used for 

impact-producing factors for a single oil shale facility are given in Section 4.1. 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-514 

TABLE 6.2.6-5 Electric Power–Generating Units 

in ROI Counties in Utah in 2005a

Primary Fuel 

No. of 

Generating Units 

Combined Power 

(MW-nameplate) 

 

Coal 9 3,214 

Waste coal 1 58 

Water 5 5.4 

Total 15 3,277 

a ROI counties include Carbon, Duchesne, Emery, 

Garfield, Grand, San Juan, Uintah, and Wayne. 

Source: EIA (2011a). 

 Although information is not available for every planning area, at least 13,500 acres/yr are 

planned to be used for prescribed burns under current management practices. Large tracts of land 

are used for grazing in the Monticello Planning Area. 

 The BLM manages more than 8 million acres of forest lands in Utah; the majority are in 

the southern half of the state, including the planning areas addressed in this PEIS. Most (more 

than 90%) of the forests are woodlands. The net annual growth in forest lands has been estimated 

at 9.2 million ft3 (BLM 2006l). The major cause of tree mortality has been fires, followed by 

insect damage. 

6.2.6.3 Cumulative Impacts Assessment for the Possible Tar Sands Development 

That Could Occur under Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4 

 As stated above and in Sections 6.2.2, 6.2.3, and 6.2.4, with the possible exception of a 

change in local property values there would be no environmental or socioeconomic impacts 

under Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 from the amendment of land use plans to identify lands as 

available or not available for application for commercial tar sands leasing. Therefore, there 

would be no cumulative impacts from these alternatives. However, direct, indirect, and 

cumulative impacts could occur as a result of future commercial tar sands development that 

could be facilitated by such land use plan amendments. This cumulative impacts assessment then 

focuses on the impacts from this future development, rather than on the impacts from the land 

use plan amendment decision. That is, the purpose of this cumulative impacts assessment is to 

discuss, in a qualitative way, how the environmental and socioeconomic conditions within the 

study area might be incrementally affected over the next 20 years (the study period) by tar sands 

development that could occur on lands made available for application for commercial leasing by 

the land use plan amendments under Alternatives 1, 2, 3, or 4. 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-515 

6.2.6.3.1 Land Use. Potential land use impacts associated with a single commercial tar 

sands facility include the exclusion of grazing, recreation, other mineral development land uses 

from lands used for tar sands development facilities and associated off-lease facilities 

(e.g., employer-provided housing and ROWs). Tar sands development could also alter the quality 

of LWC. Tar sands development facilities would disturb up to 5,760 acres of public lands for the 

facilities themselves, and up to an additional 3,750 acres of lands for ROWs and employerprovided housing (locations where these facilities would be sited are unknown but are not 

expected to be on public lands). While the total amount of ground disturbance for a tar sands 

facility using in situ technology could equal that of a facility using surface mining, surface 

acreage disturbed at any one time might be considerably less for in situ facilities depending on 

the cycle of preparation, production, and reclamation. 

 Table 6.2.6-6 presents estimates of the amount of land needed for other major industrial 

activities in the study area over the 20-year study period. These lands may be federal or 

nonfederal lands. As this table shows, land use in Utah is characterized by an extensive amount 

of industrial activity, which is expected to continue into the future. Depending on the number 

and types of tar sands facilities constructed and operating, future commercial tar sands 

development could contribute a substantial increment to the cumulative land use and disturbance 

impacts. Over a 20-year time horizon, a single tar sands facility could contribute an 

approximately 3 to 14% increase in land disturbance (i.e., up to about 9,500 acres for a single tar 

sands project compared with the range of other disturbances of 66,000 to 350,000 acres). If 

several tar sands leases are eventually granted within relatively close proximity to one another, 

this amount of leasing within a relatively small area would result in substantial changes in land 

use in that area. Oil shale development, if it occurs, would also contribute to cumulative land 

disturbance impacts. Note that the projections given in Table 6.2.6-6 are very sensitive to the 

amount of disturbance due to oil and gas development that would occur, with the large range of 

possible disturbance making the estimates quite uncertain. 

 As discussed in Section 6.2.6.2, many public lands are currently used as ROWs for shortand long-distance energy transmission. The West-Wide Energy Corridor PEIS (DOE and 

DOI 2008) designated additional regional corridors on public lands for long-distance energy 

transmission ROWs. Under that PEIS, the corridors include about 370,000 acres in Utah, a 

portion of which falls within the tar sands development area. Not all lands designated as energy 

corridors would be developed and/or disturbed; however, the percentage of potential disturbance 

is currently unknown. Should these proposed corridors be developed for energy-related ROWs, 

additional land use impacts in the region could be substantial. 

6.2.6.3.2 Soil and Geologic Resources. Tar sands development could result in impacts 

on soil and geologic resources by increasing soil removal, soil compaction, and erosion. Erosion 

of exposed soils could also lead to increased sedimentation of nearby water bodies and to the 

generation of fugitive dust, which could affect local air quality. Project areas would remain 

susceptible to these impacts until completion of construction, mining, tar sands processing, and 

site stabilization and reclamation activities (e.g., revegetation of pipeline ROWs and surface 

mine reclamation). Impacts on soil and geologic resources would be limited to the specific 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-516 

TABLE 6.2.6-6 Summary of Cumulative Long-Term Land 

Use for Tar Sands Development and Other Major Industrial 

Activities 

Activity Estimated Acres Disturbeda

 

Commercial tar sands development on 

federal or nonfederal landsb

Up to 9,500 per project 

 

Commercial oil shale development on 

federal lands or nonfederal landsb

Up to 14,000 per project 

 

Oil and gas development (acres/yr)c 2,600–16,900 

 

Coal development (acres/yr) 25 

 

Sodium minerals (nahcolite and 

dawsonite) development (acres/yr) 

0 

 

Phosphate production (acres/yr) 500 

 

Proposed power plantsd 3,100 

 

Annual total excluding tar sands and oil 

shale development 

6,000–20,000 

 

20-yr totals, excluding tar sands and oil 

shale development 

66,000–350,000 

 

Single tar sands facility percentage of 

20-yr total 

3–14% 

a Except where otherwise indicated, acreage estimates are the 

maximum projected totals from Table 6.2.6-4. 

b Acreage estimates represent the maximum possible disturbance for 

individual tar sands facilities (Section 5.1) and oil shale facilities 

(Section 4.1). 

c Acreages may be reduced from these estimates by as much as a 

factor of 10 due to the trend toward the use of multiple-well pads, 

which allow several directional wells to be drilled from a single 

pad. 

d The acreages represent the estimated footprint of projected new 

power plant development as discussed in Section 6.2.6.2, assuming 

all would be coal-fired plants requiring 3,000 acres per 1,500 MW 

of capacity. 

 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-517 

project location as well as areas where associated off-site infrastructure (such as access roads and 

utility ROWs) would be located. 

 Oil and gas development, other minerals development, oil shale development, and 

construction of additional power plants would cause similar impacts on soil and geologic 

resources in the Utah study area. Table 6.2.6-6 gives estimates of the amount of land that could 

be disturbed for these activities over the 20-year study period. Additional types of land use could 

also disturb soil, including, but not limited to, agricultural development, grazing, recreation, 

forestry, and residential development. The potential impacts from these types of land use have 

not been quantified. Also as discussed in Section 6.2.6.2.4, large areas might be designated as 

energy corridors, and their development would contribute to total soil disturbance. All these 

activities may result in soil being displaced, stockpiled, eroded, or compacted through various 

site activities. The disturbance could yield increased sediment to surface waters, and, in areas 

with high salinity in the soils, the salt content in surface water may also increase. 

 Impacts on soil and geologic resources from tar sands development could add a 

substantial increment to cumulative impacts on this resource. Impacts would increase with 

increasing numbers of tar sands facilities. A single facility could be associated with soil 

disturbance of up to about 9,500 acres. 

6.2.6.3.3 Paleontological Resources. Disturbances from tar sands development, 

combined with other surface- and subsurface-disturbing activities in the region, could uncover 

and/or destroy fossils on BLM-administered land and on other lands. Given the land disturbance 

projected from tar sands development and from other activities in the study area during the 

20-year study period (Table 6.2.6-6), it is likely that many sites will require paleontological 

evaluations and mitigation measures. Based on the assumption that these evaluations and 

mitigation measures are conducted in accordance with existing regulations and BLM policies, 

there would be increased knowledge of paleontological resources in the region and increased 

protection of resources based on this knowledge. Adverse cumulative impacts therefore are not 

expected. 

6.2.6.3.4 Water Resources. Many activities projected to occur in the study area could 

increase sediment and dissolved solid loads in streams downstream of disturbed sites (e.g., ROW 

construction and other construction projects, mining, and construction of access roads and river 

crossings). After the protective layers of soils are disturbed, the soils become vulnerable to 

erosion by surface runoff. Leaching from mine tailings and waste, overburden piles, and source 

rock piles would potentially bring organic and metal contaminants to nearby streams. Potential 

leaks (or spills) of oil or other petroleum products from pipelines would be additional risks for 

contamination of surface water resources. Modification of surface drainage and water extraction 

could also cause flow regime and morphological changes of stream channels. Most of the 

impacts would occur in the vicinity of the water bodies close to project sites and would be 

incremental. 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-518 

 If oil and gas development, mining activities, and power plant construction continue to 

grow as projected from 2012 to 2032, the disturbed areas are estimated to increase by a total of 

66,000 to 350,000 acres in Utah (Table 6.2.6-6). If a single tar sands facility is developed, it will 

contribute about 3 to 14% of additional ground disturbance in Utah. Some of the impacts near 

construction sites and mining sites would be local and could be managed and mitigated. The 

incremental impacts on water resources caused by tar sands and ancillary facilities development 

could be significant relative to the other activities. The incremental and cumulative impacts 

would depend on the location and size of tar sands development and would be evaluated in future 

environmental assessments. 

 The water uses and losses in the Upper Colorado River Basin states of Colorado, Utah, 

and Wyoming are shown in Figures 6.1.6-1 through 6.1.6-4. From the 1970s to the 1990s, the 

water uses increased, reflecting growth in agricultural and in municipal and industrial water uses 

(Figures 6.1.6-1 and 6.1.6-2). The export of Colorado River water to outside the Upper Colorado 

River Basin also increased gradually with time (Figure 6.1.6-3). From 1990 to 2008, the 

combined water use and losses in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming within the Upper Colorado 

Basin fluctuated between about 3,500 and 4,400 thousand ac-ft (Figure 6.1.6-4). This includes 

water losses from major and minor reservoirs, agricultural and municipal and industrial water 

uses, and water transfers out of the basin. Fluctuations were primarily due to variation in export 

and declining agricultural water use because of drought conditions (BOR 2004, 2005, 2006, 

2010). 

 To preliminarily assess cumulative water use in the study area over the next 20 years and 

the potential incremental impacts of tar sands development, water use projections for oil and gas 

development, coal mining, and power generation were compared with water use for individual 

tar sands facilities and with available water in the Upper Colorado River Basin 

(see Table 6.2.6-7). The sustainable, annually available water in the Upper Colorado River Basin 

was assumed to be 6,000 thousand ac-ft/yr (SWCA 1997) (a prolonged drought condition may 

decrease this water availability). The total amount of legally apportioned water available to 

Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming is 5,280 thousand ac-ft/yr. The water transfer out of the 

Upper Colorado River Basin fluctuates but was assumed to remain in the same range (540 to 

800 thousand ac-ft/yr) as for 1990 to 2008 (Figure 6.1.6-3). Also, the currently combined water 

uses for agricultural, municipal, and industrial activities were assumed to remain at the same 

level as those found in 1990 to 2008 (i.e., 3,500 to 4,400 thousand ac-ft/yr; Figure 6.1.6-4). This 

could occur as water is transferred from agricultural to municipal and industrial use. Therefore, 

currently available water would be 80 to 1,040 thousand ac-ft/yr in the three states. The 

water requirement for individual commercial tar sands facilities is estimated to be from less 

than 1 to 5.4 thousand ac-ft/yr of water, depending on the technology being used, while the 

combined water needed for oil and gas, coal mining, and new power plants would be about 

68 thousand ac-ft/yr (Table 6.1.6-10). Additional water will be needed to support regional 

population growth, potential water exports to areas outside the Upper Colorado River Basin, new 

instream flow water rights for protecting endangered species, and possibly oil shale 

development. The level of tar sands development that could be supported by available water over 

the next 20 years depends on the type of technology used, the scale of the development, and the 

other competing uses of water at the time of development. Another alternative to make more 

water available is to transfer water from current agricultural use to industrial use. Any water 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-519 

TABLE 6.2.6-7 Major Water Uses in the Next 20 Years in the Three-State Study 

Area Compared with Use for Potential Tar Sands Development 

Available Water and Water Use 

Annual Volume 

(× 1,000 ac-ft/yr) 

 

Amount of legally available water from the Colorado River 5,280 

 

Consumption uses, including export, agricultural, M&I, and evaporation 4,140–5,200 

 

Range of net amount available 80–1,040 

 

Water use estimates 

Commercial tar sands development on federal or nonfederal lands 

(individual 20,000 bbl/day tar sands facility)a

<1–5.4 

 

Commercial oil shale development on federal or nonfederal lands 

(individual 200,000 bbl/day in situ facility and ancillary facilities, 

including power plant)a

19–35

 

Commercial oil shale development on federal or nonfederal lands 

(individual 50,000 bbl/day surface mine/surface retort or underground 

mine/surface retort facility and ancillary facilities)a

4.9–7.4

Other development 

Oil and gasb 1.6 

Coal miningc 13.4 

Power plantsd 53 

Total other development 68 

a Includes processing and human consumption. 

b Assumes that 3,000 wells are drilled per year and that each uses 0.55 ac-ft of water. 

c Assumes 82 million tons of production per year; 20 million gal of water per million tons 

of coal mined is assumed for coal preparation, and 35 million gal of water per million 

tons of coal mined is assumed for dust control. 

d Assumes a total of 9,940 MW new production from coal-fired power plants; water 

consumption of 8,000 ac-ft/yr per 1,500 MW (see Section 6.1.6.1-4). 

Sources: SWCA (1997); BOR (2004, 2005, 2006, 2010). 

transfer and new water development must meet different state and federal regulations. 

Eventually, whether enough water is available for tar sands development depends on the results 

of negotiations among various parties, including water right owners, state and federal agencies, 

and municipal water providers, as well as the developers. 

 Meeting the water requirements also depends on how many facilities are constructed, the 

technologies being used, and the locations of the sites. Using water conservation practices and 

transferring agricultural water rights to industrial rights (including tar sands development) could 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-520 

make more water available if extensive tar sands development is desired. Currently, most of the 

water use in the Upper Colorado River Basin is for agricultural purposes. The agricultural 

component ranges from 55% in the Upper Main Stem (Colorado River and its tributaries above 

the mouth of the Green River) to 87% in the San Juan–Colorado area (Colorado River and its 

tributaries below the mouth of the Green River and above Lee Ferry, Arizona) (BOR 2004, 2005, 

2006, 2010). 

6.2.6.3.5 Air Quality. Air resources in and around the study area would be affected by 

subsequent commercial development of tar sands. Local, short-term air quality impacts could be 

incurred as a result of PM and exhaust emission releases during construction activities. Similar 

short-term impacts could also occur in other areas where electric transmission or oil pipeline 

ROWs and other infrastructure would be developed. Longer term impacts on local and regional 

air quality and AQRVs could occur during normal project operations, such as mining and 

processing of the tar sands, and construction and operation of off-lease infrastructure, resulting in 

emissions of criteria pollutants and HAPs. 

 Oil and gas development, other minerals development, and other activities 

(e.g., agricultural development and residential development) would all involve impacts on local 

air quality during land clearing and construction because of increased PM emissions and exhaust 

emissions from construction equipment. There could also be regional impacts on air quality and 

AQRVs if these activities involved long-term emissions of criteria pollutants or HAPs at 

substantial levels. GHG emissions from oil shale development could contribute to climate 

change to some extent. The incremental impact of tar sands development activities to total 

cumulative impacts would be assessed during future site-specific NEPA analyses. 

6.2.6.3.6 Noise. Noise is a transient problem; its impacts do not accumulate in the 

environment as do air and water pollutants. Attenuation mechanisms, such as geometric 

spreading, ground effects, and air absorption, dissipate noise energy within short distances from 

noise sources. In general, noise, except extremely loud noise, can travel a few miles even under 

nighttime temperature inversion conditions. However, cumulative noise impacts could occur 

with oil shale and tar sands development on federal and nonfederal lands, oil and gas 

development, surface and underground mining of coal, production of other minerals, and energy 

development (see Table 6.2.6-4); such impacts would depend critically on site-specific 

considerations and the proximity of the operations being considered to each other. The 

cumulative impacts of sufficiently separated noise sources are essentially the same as the noise 

impacts of each source considered separately. 

 Cumulative impacts also depend upon which phases in the lifetime of the sources being 

considered are occurring simultaneously. For example, construction associated with a tar sands 

facility would cause only a slight cumulative increase in the preexisting noise levels associated 

with a pumping station on an oil pipeline, while operation of the tar sands facility could cause a 

large increase over the preexisting levels around the facility and along nearby roads. 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-521 

 The construction noise impacts discussed in Section 5.7 are based on general 

considerations and are applicable to a wide range of construction projects. For many tar sands 

development projects, the leased area would be large enough that noise levels would be below 

EPA guideline levels at the site boundaries or at nearby sensitive receptors. Because of the 

probable large distance between projects, it is unlikely that construction of tar sands facilities 

would cause a substantial incremental increase in noise impacts over those associated with 

existing and reasonably foreseeable future projects. However, the construction of large-scale 

commercial tar sands projects involving the drilling of many wells could produce higher noise 

levels, with cumulative impacts. Also, if tar sands development is close to other projects and 

construction and worker vehicles from both projects use the same roads, there could be 

cumulative noise increases due to increased traffic on local roads. An estimate of cumulative 

impacts must be made during the assessment of site-specific impacts. 

 As noted in Section 5.7, adverse noise impacts could be associated with commercial tar 

sands facilities. Drilling and pumping in oil and gas recovery fields could also contribute to high 

cumulative noise levels, and mining operations could cause high noise levels in the vicinity of 

the mine. If these other activities occur in close proximity to tar sands development operations, 

the possibility of substantial cumulative impacts exists. However, these impacts cannot be 

estimated at this time given the lack of quantitative estimates for tar sands facilities and the lack 

of data on specific locations of other development activities. An estimate of cumulative impacts 

must be made during the assessment of site-specific impacts. 

6.2.6.3.7 Ecological Resources. Cumulative impacts of commercial tar sands 

development on ecological resources in the three-state study area would result from the past, 

present, and future impacts of a wide variety of human activities, including agricultural 

development and production, grazing activities, range management, timber harvest and 

management, residential and commercial development, recreational activities, water resource 

development projects, mineral resource development, and energy development. The current 

status of ecological resources as described in Section 3.7 reflects the cumulative impacts of past 

and present activities. This section focuses on the incremental impacts of the tar sands 

development alternatives and a set of reasonably foreseeable future actions that are expected to 

occur or that could occur over the next 20 years if commercial tar sands projects are developed. 

Reasonably foreseeable future projects include oil and gas development, coal mining, mining of 

metals and minerals, energy transmission, electrical generation, and other activities, including 

grazing, fire management, forestry, and recreation as described in Section 6.2.6.2. 

 The cumulative impacts of greatest concern on ecological resources in the study area 

include loss or degradation of habitat and habitat fragmentation related to land disturbance, loss 

of individuals in populations (especially those of rare species), and changes in the availability 

and quality of surface water resources. All other factors described in Section 4.8.1 have the 

potential to contribute to cumulative impacts, but their contributions would be relatively minor 

and more localized. 

 Section 6.2.6.2 presents available information on the projected levels of development for 

major activities in the study area. Major increases in land disturbance from reasonably 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-522 

foreseeable projects total up to approximately 350,000 acres for the projected 20-year study 

period (Table 6.2.6-6). Land disturbance associated with individual commercial tar sands 

facilities could be up to about 9,500 acres. 

 Water depletions associated with reasonably foreseeable future actions over the next 

20 years represent significant increases in cumulative water use in the study area (more than 

68,000 ac-ft/yr of the 80,000 to 1.1 million ac-ft/yr potentially available). Existing water uses 

represent about 4.1 to 5.2 million ac-ft/yr. Water consumption associated with individual 

commercial tar sands development facilities would range from less than 1,000 to 5,400 ac-ft/yr; 

water consumption associated with individual commercial oil shale development facilities would 

range from 5,000 to 35,000 ac-ft/yr (see Table 6.2.6-7). 

 Cumulative impacts on aquatic resources; plant communities and habitats; wildlife; and 

threatened, endangered, and sensitive species are discussed below. 

Aquatic Resources. The analysis of cumulative impacts on aquatic habitats and the 

organisms that inhabit those habitats considered the potential impacts of tar sands development 

in Utah together with impacts from other anticipated development activities, as described in 

Section 6.2.4.2. The types of impacting factors associated with these activities would be similar 

to those described for the direct and indirect effects of tar sands development, including 

(1) direct disturbance of aquatic habitats; (2) sedimentation of aquatic habitats as a consequence 

of soil erosion from nearby areas; (3) changes in water quantity or water quality as a result of 

changes in surface runoff patterns, depletions or discharges of water into nearby aquatic habitats, 

or releases of contaminants into nearby aquatic systems; or (4) changes in human access to 

aquatic habitats. 

 Direct disturbance of aquatic habitats can result from activities that occur within water 

bodies or within the active channel of streams and rivers. Such disturbance can occur as a result 

of mineral (e.g., gravel) extraction from streambeds; construction of stream crossings for 

pipelines, transmission lines, and roads; driving vehicles through or using heavy machinery 

within active channels; and from livestock that walk through waterways. There is a potential for 

all these activities to occur within STSAs, although it is generally anticipated that the related 

impacts would be relatively small and localized. Activities such as oil and gas development, 

mining, energy development, grazing, fires and fire management, and logging all affect erosion 

potential by disturbing soils and removing or altering vegetated cover. Such activities associated 

with other future projects are expected to result in a considerable increase in land disturbance in 

the vicinity of STSAs over the 20-year project time frame and could result in a considerable 

increase in sediments entering aquatic habitats. 

 As described in Section 5.8.1.1, construction activities for tar sands development could 

also directly disturb aquatic habitats and alter the potential for erosion and sedimentation within 

affected areas, depending upon the specific locations of leased parcels; the routes selected for 

transmission lines, roads, and pipelines; and the configuration of structures used for crossing 

those habitats. Although the direct disturbance and sedimentation of aquatic habitats resulting 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-523 

from tar sands development would likely be somewhat localized, such development could 

contribute substantially to the cumulative level of such impacts within affected watersheds. 

 In the absence of project-specific information, it was assumed that the potential for direct 

habitat disturbance and soil erosion and the resulting sediment loading of nearby aquatic habitats 

would be proportional to the amount of surface disturbance, the condition of disturbed lands at 

any given time, the proximity to aquatic habitats, and measures implemented to control impacts 

of erosion and sedimentation. Individual tar sands projects may contribute substantially to 

additional surface disturbance over the 20-year development period as compared with other 

activities planned within the study area, depending on location and size. 

 Activities within stream channels and the construction or placement of roads, culverts, 

and water diversion devices across or in waterways have a potential to fragment aquatic habitats 

by blocking upstream or downstream movements of aquatic organisms, as identified in 

Section 5.8.1.1. From a cumulative standpoint, some roadways, dams, water diversion devices, 

pipeline crossings, and other structures associated with existing development activities in the 

drainages associated with the STSAs may already contribute to such habitat fragmentation, and a 

large increase in such infrastructure would likely increase aquatic habitat fragmentation in the 

future. Areas surrounding and within the tar sands areas for which allocation alternatives are 

being considered in this PEIS currently contain a large proportion of oil and gas wells, and the 

associated structures (such as roads and pipelines) that occur within the Green River basin and 

the addition of tar sands development would be expected to further increase such fragmentation. 

The application of appropriate mitigation measures, such as controls on the designs of stream 

crossings, would reduce the potential for significant cumulative impacts to occur. 

 From a cumulative perspective, water quality within the vicinity of STSAs could also be 

affected by many human activities that introduce excess nutrients or contaminants into water 

bodies, including oil and gas development, coal mining, the construction of additional power 

plants, and grazing of livestock. Tar sands development has the potential to contribute to the 

degradation of water quality through the introduction of contaminants, either as leachate from 

spent tar sands or from spills or releases of oil, lubricants, and herbicides. 

 Within the arid regions of Utah where proposed tar sands development would occur, 

water availability is of great concern and results in conflicts over balancing water needs for 

current and future development with water needed to maintain ecological conditions in aquatic 

habitats. The anticipated water needs for individual tar sands facilities would range from less 

than 1,000 to 5,000 ac-ft/yr. One or more tar sands facilities utilizing amounts of water at the 

higher end of the range could contribute to adverse cumulative impacts on water availability. 

 Cumulative impacts on fisheries could result from increased public access to remote areas 

via newly constructed access roads and utility corridors and from the increased population levels 

that are likely to occur over the 20-year study period as a combined result of the reasonably 

foreseeable actions. The BLM has some limited means of mitigating the effects of increased 

fishing pressure. The State of Utah routinely monitors the condition of specific fisheries within 

the state and establishes and enforces regulations to maintain or improve the condition of those 

fisheries. Examples of regulations include limits on open fishing seasons and on the numbers, 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-524 

sizes, and species of fish that can be harvested from specific bodies of water. The state can also 

close streams to fishing. Assuming that the effects of such regulations are monitored and 

adjusted effectively, the overall incremental and cumulative impacts on fishery resources 

associated with increased access under the tar sands development alternatives are expected to be 

minor. 

Plant Communities and Habitats. Since the 1700s, wetland habitats have been severely 

impacted throughout the lower 48 states as a result of drainage and fill activities associated with 

agriculture, resource extraction, urban development, and other human activities; however, the 

rate of loss throughout the United States is currently much lower than historic levels 

(Dahl 1990). Losses of wetland habitat have been fairly high in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. 

From the 1780s to 1980s, wetland losses in Colorado have been estimated to be approximately 

50%, losses in Utah about 30%, and losses in Wyoming about 38% (Dahl 1990). Over the past 

several decades, federal agencies, such as the BLM, and state and private organizations have 

made considerable efforts to protect and restore wetlands and riparian habitats, and ongoing and 

planned wetland and riparian management programs are expected to continue to contribute to the 

improvement in wetland and riparian habitat function (BLM 2005g). 

 Human activities have also been impacting terrestrial habitats in Colorado, Utah, and 

Wyoming for many years. Species composition and diversity have been affected by fire 

suppression, heavy grazing, introduction of invasive species, and other factors (BLM 2005g). 

Habitat losses, fragmentation, and degradation have historically resulted from oil and gas 

development, mining, and other resource extraction activities that disturb surface soils. Although 

the BLM and other land management agencies have made considerable advances in habitat 

protection and restoration, ongoing resource extraction and other land uses are expected to 

continue to result in losses or changes to plant communities and habitats. 

 The factors that would affect plant communities and habitats as a result of tar sands 

development activities are also associated with a number of other activities that occur both 

within and outside of the STSAs. The ecoregions and associated plant communities that include 

the STSAs extend well beyond the STSA boundaries, and activities that occur outside the STSAs 

can also affect these habitats. Direct losses of habitat can occur as a result of oil and gas 

development, coal mining, mining of metals and minerals, energy development, and other 

activities. As much as 350,000 acres could be directly affected in Utah. Native plant 

communities can also be indirectly impacted or degraded by these activities. Impacts on water 

quality, surface water or groundwater flows, or air quality could adversely affect terrestrial or 

wetland plant communities, and changes in community characteristics, such as species 

composition or distribution, could result from vegetation disturbances related to some activities, 

such as grazing. Commercial tar sands development would constitute a substantial incremental 

increase to the impacts associated with other foreseeable activities. 

Wildlife. This section evaluates the potential cumulative impacts of tar sands 

development on wildlife. The current status of wildlife and their habitats, as described in 

Section 3.8, reflects the cumulative impacts of past and present activities. This section focuses on 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-525 

the incremental impacts of tar sands development alternatives and a set of reasonably foreseeable 

federal and nonfederal activities as described in Section 6.2.6.2 that could occur over the 20-year 

study period. In addition to these activities, natural events (e.g., floods, droughts, and fires), 

disease, predation, and fluctuations in prey are among the natural phenomena that contribute to 

cumulative impacts on wildlife. 

 In general, the types of cumulative impacts on wildlife would be similar to the direct and 

indirect impacts associated with tar sands development (Section 5.8.1.3). Thus, cumulative 

impacts on wildlife resources would include (1) habitat loss, alteration, fragmentation, or 

enhancement; (2) disturbance or displacement; (3) mortality; (4) obstruction to movement; and 

(5) exposure to contaminants. The effects of these actions may include (1) immediate physical 

injury or death; (2) increased energy expenditures or changes in physiological condition that may 

reduce survival or reproduction rates; or (3) long-term changes in behavior, including the 

traditional use of ranges. Potential differences between cumulative impacts on wildlife and the 

impacts arising from the tar sands development activities alone would depend on the intensity 

(magnitude), scale (geographic area), duration, timing, and frequency of development activities. 

Although habitat protection and restoration activities are incorporated into most projects, some 

losses of or modifications to habitats are expected from most activities. Even without the 

potential impacts of commercial tar sands development, the projected major increases in land 

disturbance and water depletions resulting from other reasonably foreseeable future activities, 

taken together with the impacts of past and present actions, could result in significant cumulative 

impacts on wildlife. 

 Cumulative impacts of greatest concern on wildlife and their habitats include loss or 

degradation of habitat and habitat fragmentation related to land disturbance and changes in the 

availability and quality of surface water resources. The cumulative effects of numerous land use 

activities (e.g., livestock grazing, crop production, and energy development and associated 

infrastructure) have caused widespread habitat loss and fragmentation of sagebrush ecosystems 

(Knick et al. 2003). The avoidance by wildlife of areas near industrial developments that might 

otherwise be usable habitat (i.e., functional habitat loss) would also contribute to the cumulative 

loss of habitat associated with facility development. Also, developments could further obstruct 

wildlife movements. Habitat loss and fragmentation can be particularly devastating to sagebrushdependent species such as sage-grouse and to big game species or other wildlife that have large 

home ranges or that make annual migrations among various habitats. Impacting factors can act 

synergistically and compound the importance of cumulative impacts. For instance, developments 

can result in extensive fragmentation that may leave only small, isolated areas of native 

vegetation. These areas are often more prone to invasive plant species and grazing by livestock, 

wild horses, or feral animals (BLM 2007g; Hobbs 2001). 

 Wildlife disturbance and mortality associated with activities such as recreation also could 

have significant and widespread impacts because of the high number of recreation use days. For 

example, more than 1.3 million visitor days were spent hunting, and nearly 1.6 million visitor 

days were spent snowmobiling or other winter motorized traveling on BLM-administered lands 

within Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming during FY 2004 (BLM 2007g). The other impacting 

factors discussed above have the potential to contribute to cumulative impacts, but their 

contribution would be relatively minor and more localized. 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-526 

 Other industrial developments could result in more workers within remote areas and 

increased public access because of new roads and ROWs. Increased access could result in 

increased hunting pressure and illegal poaching, depending on the locations and extent of 

development projects. Repeated intrusions (e.g., from recreationists) within a specific area have 

been shown to cause progressive declines in avian richness and abundance (Riffell et al. 1996). 

Traffic associated with industrial activities and recreation could result in additional roadkills. 

Also, structures associated with other industrial activities could increase the number of bird 

collisions. Increased densities of predators and scavengers attracted to areas of human activity 

may result in increased predation pressure on prey populations. Increased predation would be in 

addition to impacts associated with habitat loss, displacement, roadkills, collisions with 

structures and transmission lines, and other factors. 

 Site-specific mitigation, standard operating procedures, wildlife-related stipulations, 

reclamation and rehabilitation, and monitoring would minimize cumulative impacts on wildlife 

and their habitats (BLM 2006j, 2007g; DOI and USDA 2006; WGFD 2004). These measures 

would reduce the contribution of tar sands impacts to cumulative impacts throughout the project 

area. Also, implementation of state comprehensive wildlife conservation strategies and regional 

conservation plans would provide means of proactively minimizing cumulative impacts on 

wildlife and their habitats. For example, the Heart of the West Conservation Plan

(Jones et al. 2004) identifies areas where habitat is critical for the continued viability of key 

species and communities and areas where development can occur with low risk to the welfare of 

ecosystems. The plan also presents means of restoring and maintaining the health and function of 

lands within the study region. Management of game populations and enforcement of hunting 

laws have reduced the risk of declines in the number of game species compared with historic 

levels (BLM 2007g). 

Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species. In general, the cumulative impacts on 

threatened, endangered, and sensitive species would be similar to those described for other 

ecological resources. However, for many of the species, there would be a difference in the 

potential consequence of the impacts. Because of their small populations, threatened, 

endangered, and sensitive species are far more vulnerable to impacts than more common and 

widespread species. 

 The current status and distribution of ESA-listed species, BLM-designated sensitive 

species, and state-listed species are presented in Section 3.7. Current status and distribution 

reflect the cumulative effects of past and present human activities and natural limiting factors. 

Some species are considered threatened, endangered, or sensitive in the area because cumulative 

impacts have resulted in a reduction in numbers that has increased the chances the species would 

become extinct in the near future (e.g., black-footed ferret, Canada lynx, and whooping crane). 

Other species (e.g., Graham’s beardtongue) are considered vulnerable because their specific 

ecological requirements result in limited distributions and smaller population sizes that are less 

resilient. For either group of species, any incremental addition to cumulative impacts could be 

considered significant. 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-527 

 The potential direct and indirect impacts of commercial tar sands development on 

threatened, endangered, and sensitive species are listed in Table 5.8.1-4 and discussed in 

Section 5.8.1.4. The evaluation in that section indicates the potential for adverse impacts on most 

of the species in the study area. Contributions to cumulative impact are associated with direct 

effects (e.g., vegetation clearing, habitat fragmentation, and water depletion) and indirect effects 

(e.g., sedimentation from runoff, fugitive dust, and disruption of groundwater flow patterns). 

Even without the potential impacts of commercial tar sands development, the projected major 

increases in land disturbance and water depletions resulting from reasonably foreseeable future 

activities, taken together with the impacts of past and present actions, could result in significant 

cumulative impacts on these species. 

 Each alternative would require adherence to BLM policy on the protection of sensitive 

species and appropriate project-specific ESA Section 7 consultation with the USFWS. These 

latter consultations must include a consideration of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects on 

listed species under the ESA. Adherence to BLM policy and consultation with the USFWS are 

expected to reduce, but not eliminate, the contribution of commercial tar sands development to 

cumulative impacts both under NEPA and the ESA. 

6.2.6.3.8 Visual Resources. Visual impacts associated with construction and operation 

of commercial tar sands projects that may occur on federal and nonfederal lands in Utah would 

likely have cumulative impacts in the context of other development activities under way or 

planned in the affected areas, as described in Section 6.2.6.2. These development activities could 

have large visual impacts where concentrated development activity occurs. Where construction 

and operation of a commercial tar sands project on federal lands occurs in the same areas as 

these other development activities, the visual absorption capability of some landscapes could be 

exceeded. Incremental visual impacts may be of particular concern where tar sands projects, 

related infrastructure, and other development activities would be located near sensitive visual 

resources in landscapes with low visual absorption capability, and/or where the tar sands and 

other development would be located in the viewsheds of visually sensitive linear features such as 

scenic and historic trails, highways, or scenic rivers. Careful siting of facilities and application of 

mitigation measures along with conformance with BLM VRM classes would protect visual 

values in more sensitive areas from large impacts associated directly with the tar sands projects. 

However, the addition of the impacts from the tar sands projects to the impacts from other 

development activities could considerably degrade visual qualities. For VRM Classes I through 

III, the classifications would likely change; Class IV areas would likely degrade further. Also, 

the VRM classes of surrounding areas within view of the facilities may change. 

 Further cumulative visual impacts could occur because the presence of the tar sands 

projects would likely bring workers and their families to live in local communities and to 

recreate in the surrounding areas. Also, the roads and other infrastructure associated with the 

projects could cause increased visitation and usage of remote areas (e.g., OHV use). The 

increases in population and access could result in urbanized development that would contrast 

sharply with more natural-appearing existing landscapes; add to visual clutter around existing 

urbanized areas; increase visible human and vehicular activity in remote areas; degrade air 

quality (thereby negatively affecting long-distance views); and result in litter, erosion, and other 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-528 

visual changes that would not harmonize with the naturally occurring forms, lines, colors, and 

textures of existing landscapes. 

6.2.6.3.9 Cultural Resources. Disturbances from tar sands development, combined with 

other surface-disturbing development activities, could uncover or destroy cultural resources on 

BLM-administered land and on other lands. Given the large areas of surface disturbance 

projected from tar sands development and from other activities (Table 6.2.6-6) in the study area 

during the 20-year study period, it is likely that many locations would require cultural resource 

evaluations and subsequent mitigative actions. Conducted according to professional standards, 

these evaluations and mitigations would increase knowledge about cultural resources in the 

region. However, there would inevitably be some loss of information about individual sites. 

Unless a concentration of unique resources is found to exist within a small area and that area is 

the location of tar sands development, these individual site losses from construction and 

operation of an oil shale facility would be unlikely to have a major incremental adverse impact 

on cultural resources in the area. 

6.2.6.3.10 Indian Tribal Concerns. Tar sands development combined with other 

development activities could destroy, damage, or degrade resources important to Native 

Americans. Surface-disturbing activities could destroy or damage archaeological sites and 

burials and plant, animal, mineral, and water resources important to Native American culture and 

religious practices. The very presence of industrial development facilities could result in visual 

and auditory intrusions into sacred locations, landscapes, and viewsheds important to Native 

Americans. The extent to which these resources would be disturbed would be dependent on their 

location relative to development. Given the amount of development projected for the study area 

in the next 20 years, it is likely that resources important to Native Americans could be affected. 

The incremental adverse effect of the construction and operation of tar sands operation on these 

resources would depend on site-specific factors. Consultation with affected federally recognized 

tribes by the BLM and tar sands developers could result in the avoidance or amelioration of 

adverse effects. A major incremental impact on resources important to Native Americans from 

the construction and operation of a tar sands facility in the area is unlikely. 

6.2.6.3.11 Socioeconomics. Economic impacts can be measured in terms of changes in 

employment in the study area in which tar sands resources are located. Because of the relative 

economic importance of tar sands developments in small rural economies and the consequent 

lack of available local labor and economic infrastructure, tar sands development may mean a 

large influx of population. Because population increases are likely to be rapid and local 

communities would be unable to quickly absorb new residents, there would also be impacts on 

housing in the study area. 

 The impacts of tar sands development include wage and salary expenditures associated 

with the construction and operation of the facilities, material procurement and wage and salary 

expenditures associated with the construction of temporary housing in the ROI for workers and 

family members, and wage and salary spending associated with indirect workers required to 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-529 

provide goods and services resulting from increases in economic activity in the ROI. Overall, tar 

sands development could produce a substantial number of jobs, depending on the scale of 

development (e.g., for an individual facility, about 570 jobs during the construction of temporary 

housing, about 1,930 jobs during construction of tar sands facilities, and about 760 jobs during 

operations [see Table 5.12.1-1]). 

 Population in-migration would occur also with tar sands resource development. Workers 

would be required to move into the region during construction and operation of tar sands 

facilities. Workers would also be required to move into the region to facilitate the demand for 

goods and services resulting from the spending of tar sands worker and housing construction 

worker wages and salaries. 

 Development of natural gas and coal resources in the ROI is also expected to produce a 

substantial number of jobs. It is not known whether development of natural gas and coal 

resources in the ROI would require the in-migration of construction and operations workers or 

the construction of additional temporary housing. 

 Rapid population growth in small rural communities hosting large resource development 

projects could also produce social and psychological disruption and undermine established 

community social structures (see Section 5.12.1.2). Various studies have suggested that social 

disruption may occur in small rural communities when annual population increases are 5 to 15%. 

 On the basis of the employment estimates given above, reasonably foreseeable oil and 

gas and coal production in the study area is estimated to have a larger socioeconomic impact than 

a single tar sands facility. However, depending on the future level of tar sands development and 

given the estimated population increases due to construction and operation of a single tar sands 

facility, there may be substantial incremental socioeconomic impacts (e.g., interruption of 

community services, impacts on availability of housing, social disruption, decreases in property 

value and loss of employment and income in the recreation sector) from tar sands development 

when considered in conjunction with the other ongoing and reasonably foreseeable activities in 

the study area. 

 Cumulative impacts on transportation systems and traffic levels would be related to both 

employment and freight requirements to service projects. Overall, tar sands development could 

produce a substantial number of jobs, depending on the scale of development (see above). 

Transportation impacts would be additive to other activities taking place on private and public 

lands. Substantial increases in traffic flow and in transportation infrastructure maintenance 

requirements would be expected to support tar sands operations. 

6.2.6.3.12 Environmental Justice. Construction and operation of tar sands facilities and 

employer-provided housing could impact environmental justice if any adverse health and 

environmental impacts resulting from either phase of development were high and if these 

impacts disproportionately affected minority and low-income populations. Disproportionality is 

determined by comparing the proximity of high and adverse impacts with the location of lowincome and minority populations. As described in Sections 6.2.6.3.1 through 6.2.6.3.10, tar sands 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-530 

development in conjunction with other ongoing and reasonably foreseeable activities may 

potentially have high and adverse effects on several resources, including local demographics, 

social disruption, property values, noise and visual impacts, land use and water quality, and air 

quality. 

 There are a number of census block groups in Utah with low-income and minority 

populations, where the minority population exceeds 50% of the total population in each block 

group. There are also block groups in the state where the minority share of total block group 

population exceeds the state average by more than 20 percentage points (see Section 3.10). 

Given the potential for high and adverse incremental impacts on a number of resource areas from 

tar sands development in conjunction with oil, gas, coal, and potential oil shale development and 

given the existence of environmental justice populations in the state, impacts on these resources 

could disproportionately affect minority and low-income populations. Of particular importance 

would be the impact of large increases in population in small rural communities on social 

disruption, the undermining of local community social structures, and the resulting deterioration 

in quality of life. The impacts of facility operations on air and water quality and on the demand 

for water in the region could also be important. Impacts on low-income and minority populations 

may also occur with the development of transmission lines associated with tar sands facilities in 

each state, depending on the location of these infrastructures. Land use and visual environmental 

justice impacts might be significant depending on the locations of land parcels impacted by all 

these activities. Cumulative impacts on environmental justice would be evaluated in future 

NEPA analyses when the locations and sizes of the projects in relation to low-income and 

minority populations are known. 

6.2.6.3.13 Hazardous Materials and Waste Management 

Wastes Associated with Oil and Gas Development. Table 6.2.6-4 estimates that an 

average maximum of 440 oil wells would be drilled per year among the seven Utah study areas 

addressed in this analysis. Oil and gas development can involve three basic stages: exploration, 

well development, and production. Exploring for and locating and characterizing the petroleum 

resource can involve the installation of a relatively small number of small-bore wells to collect 

geologic cores for inspection and analysis. Increasingly, exploration is conducted with 

nonintrusive technologies, and wastes associated with exploration are limited and 

inconsequential. 

 Well development produces the greatest volume and array of wastes. Wells drilled on 

BLM-administered lands would be subject to the requirements and BMPs contained in the BLM 

Gold Book (DOI and USDA 2006) and any additional requirements established as lease 

stipulations by the BLM field office. Waste management for wells installed on private property 

is expected to be in accordance with accepted industry practice. Each well installed would 

generate well development fluid wastes and waste cuttings, some of which may have oil 

contamination from the formation being exploited. However, unless the well progresses through 

previously contaminated subsurface zones or encounters contaminated groundwater, the waste 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-531 

typically associated with well installation would not exhibit hazardous character and can be 

expected to be managed according to standard practices. 

 Well development fluids38 would be collected on-site for reuse and/or disposal; free 

water separated from development fluids and drilling muds would be verified as being free of 

unexpected contamination and released to the ground surface; drilling muds such as bentonite 

clays would be accumulated on-site for recovery and reuse; and drill cuttings would be verified 

as being free of contamination and disposed of at the land surface, usually in the vicinity of the 

well.39 Special management would be required for development fluids, drilling muds, and 

produced water that exhibit contamination from NORM or brackish character. All NORMcontaminated wastes would be collected and delivered to properly permitted treatment and 

disposal facilities. Brackish water would be either reinjected down the well (or an injection well) 

or collected for delivery to treatment facilities. Likewise, downhole equipment removed from the 

well and found to have NORM contamination would be managed in the same manner. It is 

assumed that all the drill rigs used for well development would be portable and would not 

undergo routine servicing (except for maintenance of fluid levels) at the well site. No wastes 

associated with drill rig operation and maintenance (e.g., maintenance of the rig’s diesel engine) 

are expected to be generated at wellheads, but may be generated elsewhere in the study area 

where the rigs are serviced. 

 Oil and gas formation fracturing also produces large volumes of liquids wastes. 

Fracturing (known as “fracking” in the oil and gas industry) is a process that uses high hydraulic 

pressure to crack the hydrocarbon-containing formation. This process increases the flow rate and 

volume of hydrocarbon fluids that move from the producing formation into the wellbore and aids 

extraction of oil and gas deposits that might otherwise be left behind. Hydraulic fracturing is a 

60-year-old process that is now being used more commonly as a result of advanced technology. 

 Fracturing fluids carry sand or other small particles of material (proppants) into the newly 

created crevices to keep the fractures open when the pressure is relieved. Hydraulic fracturing 

fluids generally consist of 90% water, 9.5% sand, and 0.5% chemical additives. The chemicals 

are used to enhance fracturing and to protect the well integrity (API 2010). As many as 

750 different chemicals were used by the oil and gas industry for hydraulic fracturing between 

2005 and 2009. A list of chemicals used is provided in Chemicals Used in Hydraulic Fracturing, 

prepared by the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce (2011).

 

38 Well development fluids are water-based (most frequently used), petroleum-based (used primarily in very deep 

wells where high temperatures may be encountered [usually >10,000 ft], or in directional drilling where greater 

lubricity is required for the drill bit), or composed entirely of synthetic chemicals (e.g., linear alkyl olefins, 

synthetic paraffins, and alkybenzenes). They perform a number of functions, including cooling and lubricating 

the drill bit, carrying cuttings up the borehole to the surface, and temporarily filling the well bore with material 

that is sufficiently dense to prevent the premature inflow of groundwater, other fluids (e.g., oil), or subsurface 

materials that would collapse the borehole before casings are installed. Development fluids will also typically 

contain various other chemicals, such as naturally occurring clays (referred to as drilling muds), dispersants, 

corrosion inhibitors, flocculants, surfactants, and biocides, to enhance their overall performance. 

39 Although drill cuttings will, in most cases, be nonhazardous, care must nevertheless be exercised in their 

disposal so as not to significantly alter surface drainage patterns or release sediments to area surface waters. 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-532 

 To protect groundwater from potential contamination from oil and gas drilling on public 

lands, including fracking operations, the BLM approves and regulates all drilling and completion 

operations, and related surface disturbance. Prior to approving a drilling permit, a BLM geologist 

identifies all potential subsurface formations that will be penetrated by the wellbore and provides 

that information to a BLM petroleum engineer who reviews proposed casing and cementing 

programs. During drilling, the BLM is on location during the casing and cementing of the 

groundwater surface and other critical intervals. 

 The 2005 Energy Policy Act exempted the injection of fracking fluids from the Safe 

Drinking Water Act’s Underground Injection Control Program. The Act, however, did allow the 

EPA to continue regulating the use of diesel fuel in fracking fluids. In addition, the EPA is 

studying the potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water resources while 

developing permitting guidance. A database of BMPs for hydraulic fracturing is available on the 

Intermountain Oil and Gas BMP Project Web site (University of Colorado Law School 2011). 

 Onshore Order No. 2 details national standards for levels of performance expected from 

lessees and operators when conducting drilling operations on federal and Indian lands, including 

casing and cementing requirements to ensure well integrity. The BLM’s casing and cementing 

programs are conducted such that they protect and/or isolate all usable water zones, lost 

circulation zones, abnormally pressured zones, and any prospectively valuable deposits of 

minerals. The State of Colorado, through the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission 

(COGCC), has established regulations that require wells to be cased with steel pipe and the 

casing to be surrounded by cement to create a hydraulic seal with the well bore. About 95% of 

new oil and gas wells in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming are fractured. The majority of fluids used 

in the fracturing process are recycled, and no fluids are sent to wastewater treatment plants. Of 

the remaining fluids, 60% goes into deep waste injection wells, 20% evaporates from lined pits, 

and 20% is discharged as usable surface water under permits from the Colorado Water Quality 

Control Commission (BLM 2011b). 

 As of September 2010, the WOGCC required disclosure of the types and amounts of 

chemicals used in fracking operations (University of Colorado Law School 2011). In Utah, oil 

and gas development would be subject to ongoing groundwater protections as outlined in BLM 

Instruction Memorandum UT 2010-055, Protection of Ground Water Associated with Oil and 

Gas Leasing, Exploration and Development (BLM 2010c). 

 Products recovered from oil and gas wells are typically complex mixtures of oil, 

hydrocarbon gases, other gases such as H2S, water, suspended solids such as sand and silt, 

chemicals injected to enhance recovery, and water/oil emulsions. Actions to separate these 

phases are performed at the wellhead or at a central processing facility. 

 Produced water (water recovered from the oil- or gas-bearing formations or other 

subsurface formations) is by far the largest volume of waste produced during well production. 

Produced water is typically discharged back down the well or through a second injection well 

completed in the same formation. Produced water can also be used for nonpotable purposes, such 

as fugitive dust control, provided it is free of contamination from polar organics (e.g., benzene, 

naphthalene, toluene, and phenanthrene), inorganics (e.g., lead, arsenic, and sulfide), or NORM 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-533 

and exhibits no brackish character. Produced water may also need special management because 

of high concentrations of sodium, chloride, calcium, or magnesium. Discharge of high-salinity 

waters to the ground surface or surface waters would be prohibited, and capture and treatment or 

reinjection would be required. 

 The exact natures and volumes of well development–related wastes would depend on 

numerous site-specific factors; however, reliable approximations are possible. Over the study 

period, it is projected that about 3,000 wells per year would be installed in the study area, 

resulting in the generation of large volumes of development fluids and produced water. Some tar 

sands facilities might also generate large volumes of produced water. If all the wastes are 

managed appropriately, incremental cumulative impacts from disposal of these wastes should be 

minimal. All the wastes are expected to be managed in much the same manner as the wastes of 

these types currently being generated within the study area. 

Wastes Associated with Mining of Coal and Other Minerals. Wastes associated with 

coal mining include landscape wastes from clearing active mine areas, solid industrial wastes 

resulting from the maintenance and repair of mining equipment, overburden soils (topsoils and 

subsoils) removed to gain access to the coal resource,40 and domestic solid wastes resulting from 

support of the workforce,41 produced water, and wastes from coal preparation (e.g., shale, coal 

fines, and other impurities). Produced water would likely require treatment because of the 

leaching of metals from the coal resource or to adjust its pH. Treatment might result in the 

generation of metal-bearing sludge that would require off-site disposal in most instances. Coal 

preparation wastes are typically disposed of on-site or stockpiled for later use in mine 

reclamation. 

 Recoverable coal deposits exist primarily in the Henry Mountain and San Rafael 

Planning Areas (Table 6.2.6-4). Projected coal production over the entirety of the study period 

(2012 to 2032) is 25 million tons per year within the Henry Mountain Planning Area (Wasatch 

Plateau Coal Field) and 4.8 to 9 million tons per year from deposits within the San Rafael 

Planning Area. The amounts of solid wastes generated are proportional to total coal mined, but 

would vary significantly with the particular mining techniques employed and the extent of coal 

preparation occurring at the mine site. Tar sands development using surface mining would 

generate waste streams similar to those produced during coal mining. At the PEIS level, it is not 

possible to estimate the nature or volumes of solid wastes within tons of coal or tar sands mined. 

 

40 Although overburden must be managed carefully to avoid adverse impacts (primarily increased sediment loading 

to area surface water bodies due to erosion), it is not considered a waste; it is typically stockpiled over the active 

life of the coal mining operation and replaced (in the order of the original soil horizon) as part of mine 

reclamation. 

41 It is assumed that the workforce would not be quartered at or near the coal mine but instead would live in nearby 

communities. Consequently, wastes related to workforce support would be minimal, consisting primarily of 

kitchen/food preparation solid wastes, small amounts of administrative (office) solid wastes, and small amounts 

of sanitary wastes. 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-534 

Cumulative impacts of hazardous materials generation and waste management would be 

evaluated in future NEPA analyses when the locations and sizes of the projects are known. 

 Only limited production of noncoal minerals is projected to occur. Phosphate mining is 

expected to occur only in the Diamond Mountain study area; gilsonite is expected to occur only 

within the Book Cliffs area (at 60,000 tons/yr). Although there is high potential for occurrence of 

uranium, vanadium, gold, and copper in the Henry Mountain study area, no significant 

production is predicted; gypsum production is expected to occur only in the San Rafael study 

area. However, stone, sand, and gravel would occur throughout all the study areas. 

 Mineral (e.g., copper, gold, and silver) mining and processing can generate wastes during 

recovery (i.e., mining), beneficiation (separation of mined material), and processing. Recovery 

can result in large volumes of overburden materials needing management, as discussed above for 

coal mining. Although those materials are generally not considered waste, they must be managed 

properly to avoid adverse impacts. Beneficiation can result in the generation of relatively large 

volumes of potentially hazardous material. This material, referred to as tailings, is processed 

through dump leaching, in which solutions containing strong acids or cyanides are sprayed onto 

the tailings to “leach” the metal of interest for capture. The tailings can be voluminous 

(EPA 1994) and hazardous. Processing of the mineral ore involves a variety of chemical and 

physical manipulations that produce a wide variety of wastes, many of them capable of 

producing significant adverse environmental impacts if not managed properly. In 1985, the EPA 

published a Report to Congress on the environmental aspects of non-coal-mining activities; the 

report provides relatively comprehensive discussions of possible environmental impacts, 

including the types of wastes resulting from typical recovery, beneficiation, and processing 

schemes for selected metals (EPA 1985). 

 Phosphate mining involves a complex array of washing, flotation, and separation actions 

to produce the desired product, each step also resulting in waste. The EPA has published a report 

in which typical phosphate mining and beneficiation activities are defined (EPA 1994). After 

brush and overburden have been removed to expose the phosphate deposit known as a matrix ore 

(mixture of clays and phosphate), draglines excavate the matrix ore and deliver it for 

beneficiation and processing. This is accomplished through a series of washing steps, followed 

by a flotation step, augmented by the addition of a mixture of fatty acids and re-refined oil and 

ammonium hydroxide (for pH adjustment). Sulfuric acid and amines are used to further separate 

and purify products recovered from the initial flotation steps. The solids recovered from initial 

flotation steps are technically “tailings.” However, clays and other minerals such as magnesium 

oxide are also recovered from flotation steps and are typically sold as by-product materials rather 

than disposed of as wastes. Solids recovered from final flotation steps are typically managed as 

wastes, although some beneficial uses (e.g., construction materials and fill) have been identified. 

The phosphate solution recovered from the final flotation steps is dewatered to produce the final 

product. Most chemicals added to enhance flotation can be recovered for reuse, but many 

become contaminants in tailings wastes. Those tailings not put to beneficial use are typically 

disposed of on the mine site. 

 Similar to metallic ores and phosphate development, tar sands development could 

generate produced water and large volumes of overburden; however, tailings would not be 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-535 

generated. Cumulative impacts of hazardous materials generation and waste management would 

be evaluated in future NEPA analyses when the locations and sizes of the projects are known. 

Wastes Associated with Designation and Development of Energy Corridors. The 

designation of energy corridors within the study area is not, in and of itself, expected to have any 

waste consequences. Waste would, however, be generated during actual corridor development 

for gas and liquid pipelines and for electric power transmission systems on public and private 

lands. 

 Solid wastes associated with gas and liquid pipelines and with power transmission 

systems would be generated during construction, operation, and decommissioning. The majority 

of wastes would be generated during the construction phases. Construction wastes would include 

wastes generated during preparation of the ROW (consisting primarily of removed vegetation) 

and during installation of the pipeline or cables (primarily, maintenance-related wastes for 

vehicles and equipment, dunnage, packaging, some chemical cleaner wastes). Support of the 

workforce would result in the production of domestic solid wastes and sanitary wastewaters. It is 

expected that the majority of construction-related wastes would be nonhazardous and would be 

managed in existing local landfills or in existing municipal or specially built sewage treatment 

facilities. 

 Operational wastes result from the maintenance of equipment (e.g., change-outs of 

lubricating oils, coolants, and hydraulic fluids from equipment utilizing such materials, and 

sludge from the periodic cleaning of the insides of the pipelines through the use of pigs). The 

frequency of cleaning and the amount of waste generated are a function of the commodity being 

transported, with the greatest amounts of pipeline cleaning–related wastes generated for pipelines 

conveying crude oil. 

 Solid wastes associated with the decommissioning of pipelines or power transmission 

systems include wastes from the cleaning of equipment, as well as some of the pipeline 

components. For pipelines, it is expected that much of the underground pipeline may be 

abandoned in place, and for those pipeline components that are removed, the majority would be 

put into service in other pipeline systems or sold for scrap. As is the case during the construction 

phase, solid domestic and sanitary wastes would be generated (albeit in lesser amounts because 

decommissioning is expected to take substantially less time than initial construction) in support 

of the workforce, and all such wastes would likely be managed or disposed of in existing 

facilities. Finally, a certain volume of remedial wastes can be expected to result from the cleanup 

of spills or leaks that were not removed during operation or occurred during decommissioning. 

 The construction of gas and liquid pipeline ROWs and transmission ROWs to support 

tar sands development would generate similar types of waste to those discussed above. Large 

numbers of gas and liquid ROWs are already present on public lands in the study area, and 

many more areas may be designated as corridors for ROWs during the study period 

(see Section 6.2.4.2). Incremental impacts from waste generation and disposal would depend 

on the level of tar sands development and would be assessed in future site-specific 

environmental evaluations. 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-536 

Wastes Associated with Oil Shale Development. Wastes that would be generated from 

oil shale development would be of the same nature as those described in Section 4.13. 

Incremental impacts from waste generation and disposal due to tar sands development would 

depend on the level of tar sands development and would be assessed in future site-specific 

environmental evaluations. 

6.2.6.3.14 Health and Safety. Given the large amount of development for oil and gas, 

coal mining, and other mineral production projected in the study area over 20 years, many 

workers will be needed. The types of industries being developed, especially mining, have 

been associated with relatively high numbers of worker injuries and fatalities in the past 

(see Section 5.14). Tar sands production activities would add to worker injuries and fatalities in 

proportion to the level of development. Without more detailed information on future production 

levels for tar sands as well as the other industries, quantitative estimates of incremental health 

and safety impacts due to tar sands development are not possible. However, all these industries 

are required by law to protect worker health and safety using adequate engineering controls and 

personal protective devices. 

6.2.7 Other NEPA Considerations 

6.2.7.1 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 

 The amendment of land use plans to identify public lands as available or not available for 

application for leasing for commercial tar sands development would not result in unavoidable 

adverse environmental impacts under Alternative 2, 3, or 4, but there may be impacts on land 

values. Under any of the alternatives, the future development of commercial tar sands projects 

could also result in unavoidable adverse impacts on natural resources. The magnitude of these 

unavoidable adverse impacts, as well as the degree to which they could be mitigated, would vary 

by project type and location. Many of the project-specific impacts could be reduced through 

implementation of the mitigation practices identified in this PEIS (see Chapter 5). 

6.2.7.1.1 Land Use. No adverse impacts on land use would occur from the identification 

of lands as available or not available for application for leasing and associated land use plan 

amendments under Alternative 2, 3, or 4. However, the future development of commercial tar 

sands projects within the areas identified as available for leasing would result in unavoidable 

changes in land use in the areas undergoing project development. Land uses that could be 

affected by the construction and operation of commercial tar sands projects may include 

livestock grazing, agriculture, oil and gas leasing, minerals extraction, and recreation. 

6.2.7.1.2 Soil, Geologic, and Paleontological Resources. No adverse impacts on 

geologic and paleontological resources would occur under Alternative 2, 3, or 4 from the 

identification of lands as available or not available for application for leasing and the associated 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-537 

land use plan development. Unavoidable adverse impacts could occur in the future under any of 

the alternatives as a result of commercial project construction and operation. Project construction 

could result in unavoidable impacts on natural topography, soil erosion, drainage patterns, and 

slopes, as well as discovery damage or destruction of paleontological resources within project 

footprints. Project construction could also result in the compaction, excavation, and removal of 

soil from the project area. The likelihood, magnitude, and extent of unavoidable impacts could 

be reduced under both alternatives through the implementation of appropriate project- and 

location-specific mitigation measures. 

6.2.7.1.3 Water Resources. The identification of lands as available or not available for 

application for leasing and associated land use plan amendments would not adversely impact 

water resources (either surface water or groundwater) under any of the alternatives. Unavoidable 

adverse impacts could occur as a result of construction and operation of commercial tar sands 

projects in the lease areas. Water quality could be impacted as a result of soil erosion from 

construction sites; runoff from mine areas, tar sands processing, and waste storage locations; and 

accidental spills of hazardous liquids (such as fuels, lubricating oils, solvents, and other 

industrial liquids) and accidental oil spills from project-related pipelines. Although there is a 

potential for unavoidable adverse impacts on water resources from future commercial 

development under any of the alternatives, the likelihood, magnitude, and extent of impacts 

could be reduced under each alternative through the implementation of appropriate project- and 

location-specific mitigation measures. 

6.2.7.1.4 Air Quality and Ambient Noise Levels. No adverse impacts on air quality or 

ambient noise would occur from the identification of lands as available or not available for 

application for leasing and associated land use plan amendments under Alternative 2, 3, or 4. 

Unavoidable adverse impacts could be incurred during the construction and operation of future 

commercial tar sands projects in the lease areas under any of the alternatives. Construction, 

clearing and grading, trenching, excavation and blasting, and construction vehicle traffic would 

result in fugitive dust and vehicle emissions as well as increased ambient noise levels in 

construction locations. During project operations, unavoidable air impacts would occur primarily 

during operation of mining and tar sands processing facilities and equipment and associated 

vehicular traffic. Noise impacts could also be incurred as the result of these activities, as well as 

from the operation of pipeline compressor stations. The likelihood, magnitude, and extent of 

unavoidable adverse impacts could be reduced under each alternative through the 

implementation of appropriate project- and location-specific mitigation measures. 

6.2.7.1.5 Ecological Resources. No adverse impacts on ecological resources would 

occur as a result of the identification of lands as available or not available for application for 

leasing under all four alternatives and associated land use plan amendments under Alternatives 2, 

3, and 4. Unavoidable adverse impacts would occur under all alternatives as a result of 

commercial development of tar sands projects. The construction and operation of project 

facilities, as well as the maintenance of project-related utility, pipeline, and transportation 

ROWs, under each alternative could result in unavoidable temporary and permanent changes in 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-538 

aquatic resources, plant communities and habitats, wildlife, and threatened and endangered 

species. 

 Ecological resources immediately within a project footprint would be destroyed during 

clearing, grading, and construction activities. Unavoidable impacts on wildlife could include 

habitat loss, disturbance and/or displacement, mortality, and obstruction to movement. Increased 

noise during project construction and operation could disrupt local wildlife foraging and 

breeding of some wildlife. Aquatic biota and habitats could be affected by siltation resulting 

from runoff from areas of disturbed soils and from accidental releases of hazardous materials 

from construction and operations equipment (such as fuels) and from an accidental oil pipeline 

release. The likelihood, magnitude, and extent of unavoidable adverse impacts could be reduced 

under each alternative through the implementation of appropriate project- and location-specific 

mitigation measures. 

6.2.7.1.6 Visual Resources. No adverse impacts on visual resources would occur from 

the identification of lands as available or not available for application for leasing and associated 

land use plan amendments under Alternative 2, 3, or 4. Unavoidable adverse impacts would 

occur under all alternatives during the construction and operation of future commercial tar sands 

projects. Under each alternative, short-term impacts could occur during construction. Fugitive 

dust and the presence of construction equipment and crews would be visible in the vicinity of the 

construction site, potentially affecting local viewsheds and recreational experiences. Because 

project-specific ROWs and infrastructure (e.g., electricity transmission towers, pipelines and 

compressor stations, surface mines, and tar sands processing facilities) would be visible 

throughout the life span of any project, there could be long-term unavoidable impacts on some 

viewsheds and the recreational experiences of visitors in those viewsheds. The likelihood, 

magnitude, and extent of unavoidable adverse impacts could be reduced under each alternative 

through the implementation of appropriate project- and location-specific mitigation measures. 

6.2.7.1.7 Cultural Resources. No adverse impacts on cultural resources would occur 

from identification of lands as available or not available for application for leasing and the 

associated land use plan amendments under Alternative 2, 3, or 4. However, leasing itself has the 

potential to impact cultural resources to the extent that the terms of the lease would limit an 

agency’s ability to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects of proposed commercial tar sands 

development on cultural properties. Unavoidable adverse impacts could occur as a result of the 

development of commercial tar sands projects in areas identified as available for application for 

leasing under all four alternatives. Under both alternatives, cultural resources could be destroyed 

by construction activities such as clearing and grading, mining, facility construction, and pipeline 

trenching. Development of new ROWs could also increase access to previously inaccessible 

areas, which could lead to vandalism of both known and undiscovered cultural sites. The 

likelihood, magnitude, and extent of unavoidable adverse impacts on cultural resources could be 

reduced under each alternative through the implementation of appropriate project- and locationspecific mitigation measures. 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-539 

6.2.7.1.8 Indian Tribal Concerns. No adverse effects on resources important to Native 

Americans would occur from the identification of lands as available or not available for 

application for leasing and land use plan amendments under Alternatives 2, 3, and 4. However, 

these resources could incur unavoidable adverse impacts as a result of any future development of 

commercial tar sands projects in areas identified as available for application for leasing under all 

four alternatives, depending on the location of the project in relation to resources important to 

Native Americans. Resources could be destroyed by construction activities, such as clearing and 

grading, mining, facility construction, and pipeline trenching. The visual and auditory context of 

sacred sites could be impaired. Development of new ROWs could also increase access to 

previously inaccessible areas, and this could lead to vandalism of culturally important sites. The 

likelihood, magnitude, and extent of unavoidable adverse impacts on resources important to 

Native Americans could be reduced under each alternative through government-to-government 

consultation with the affected tribes and the implementation of appropriate project- and locationspecific mitigation measures, but may not be entirely avoidable. 

6.2.7.1.9 Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice. With the exception noted for 

potential impacts on land values, the identification of lands as available or not available for 

application for commercial leasing under all four alternatives would not result in any adverse 

socioeconomic, transportation, or environmental justice impacts. Unavoidable adverse social and 

environmental justice impacts could occur under all four alternatives as a result of construction 

and operation of commercial tar sands facilities and the associated transportation infrastructure 

and employer-provided housing. Rapid population growth following the in-migration of 

construction and operations workers associated with tar sands and ancillary facilities into 

communities could lead to the undermining of local community social structures with contrasting 

beliefs and value systems among the local population and in-migrants and, consequently, to a 

range of changes in social and community life, including increases in crime, alcoholism, drug 

use, and so forth. Impacts may also occur in association with the degradation of air and water 

quality, increases in traffic and congestion, visual resources, and removal of land from traditional 

uses during commercial project development. Many of these impacts would affect quality of life 

for the general population in many communities, in addition to that for low-income and minority 

populations residing in the vicinity of commercial tar sands developments. Although many 

locations of cultural significance to tribal groups may have been protected or identified, impacts 

of commercial tar sands developments may also occur with the alteration of, or restricted access 

to, water and visual resources; the degradation or migration of particular animal species; and the 

resulting impacts on subsistence and traditional landscape-based activities important to tribal 

groups. 

 6.2.7.1.10 Hazardous Materials and Waste Management. No adverse impacts from 

hazardous materials and waste management would occur from the identification of lands as 

available or not available for application for leasing and the associated land use plan 

amendments under Alternative 2, 3, or 4. Unavoidable adverse impacts could occur as a result of 

the potential future development of commercial tar sands projects in the areas identified under all 

four alternatives. Construction and operations of tar sands projects would result in the use of 

hazardous materials and the generation of hazardous and nonhazardous wastes, including 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-540 

materials typically utilized during construction and operations (e.g., fuels, lubricating oils, 

hydraulic fluids, glycol-based coolants and solvents, adhesives, corrosion control coatings, and 

herbicides for vegetation clearing). During construction, nonhazardous landscape wastes would 

be generated. In general, the appropriate management of these materials would result in only 

minor impacts. Disposal of spent tar sands within the leased area could result in unavoidable 

adverse impacts. The likelihood, magnitude, and extent of unavoidable adverse impacts from 

hazardous materials and waste management could be reduced under each alternative through the 

implementation of appropriate project- and location-specific mitigation measures. 

 6.2.7.1.11 Health and Safety. No adverse impacts on health and safety would occur 

from the identification of lands as available or not available for application for leasing and the 

associated land use plan amendments under all four alternatives. Unavoidable adverse impacts 

could occur as a result of the potential future development of commercial tar sands projects in 

the areas identified under all four alternatives. Hazards for workers at tar sands development 

facilities include risks of accidental injuries or fatalities, lung disease caused by inhalation of 

particulates and other hazardous substances, and hearing loss. A comprehensive facility health 

and safety plan and worker safety training would be required as part of the plan of development 

for every proposed commercial tar sands project. The likelihood, magnitude, and extent of 

unavoidable adverse impacts on health and safety could be reduced under each alternative 

through the implementation of appropriate project- and location-specific mitigation measures. 

6.2.7.2 Short-Term Uses of the Environment and Long-Term Productivity 

 The amendment of land use plans to identify lands as available or not available for 

application for leasing for commercial tar sands development would not affect the short-term 

uses or long-term productivity of the environment. The impacts (short- and long-term) from 

utilization of resources associated with project development under all four alternatives are 

presented in Chapter 5. For this PEIS, short-term refers primarily to the period of construction of 

a commercial tar sands project; it is generally during this time that the most extensive 

environmental impacts would occur. Long-term refers primarily to the 20-year time frame 

considered within this PEIS. 

 Within the 20-year time frame considered in this PEIS, the development of tar sands 

projects would not require short-term disturbance or long-term alteration of a major amount of 

federal and nonfederal land under any of the four alternatives. Future development of 

commercial tar sands projects under all four alternatives would result in local, short- and longterm disturbance of most resources. There would be little difference in the types of impacts that 

could result from future project development under any of the alternatives. Under these 

alternatives, land clearing and grading and construction activities would disturb surface soils, 

wildlife and their habitats, and affect local air and water quality, visual resources, noise levels, 

and recreational activities within individual project footprints. Similar effects could be expected 

on other federal and nonfederal lands where project-related infrastructure (such as utility and 

pipeline ROWs, and worker residences) would be located. Short-term construction-related 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-541 

disturbance of biota (and their habitats) could result in long-term reductions in biological 

productivity within the project areas. 

 The long-term presence of commercial tar sands projects and associated ROWs could 

affect long-term land use within and in the vicinity of any commercially developed lease areas, 

as well as on both federal and nonfederal lands where support infrastructure (e.g., ROWs and 

employer-provided housing) would be located, especially if previous land use activities in those 

areas are determined to be incompatible with commercial tar sands projects. The lands and 

surrounding areas associated with all four alternatives currently support a variety of land uses 

(depending on their specific locations), including livestock grazing, agriculture, recreation, oil 

and gas leasing, and minerals extraction. Commercial tar sands projects under both alternatives 

could also affect long-term quality and use of visual resources and recreational use on federal 

and nonfederal lands. While some recreational activities (such as OHV use) could experience 

long-term increases in activity as a result of new ROWs into previously inaccessible areas, 

changes in the types and patterns of recreational usage can be positive or negative, depending on 

the subjective values of the interested and affected public. 

6.2.7.3 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources 

 This section describes the irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources 

associated with the implementation of the tar sands alternatives evaluated in this PEIS. A 

resource commitment is considered irreversible when direct and indirect impacts from its use 

limit future use options. Irreversible commitments apply primarily to nonrenewable resources, 

such as cultural resources, and to those resources that are renewable only over long periods of 

time, such as soil productivity or forest health. A resource commitment is considered 

irretrievable when the use or consumption of the resource renders it neither renewable nor 

recoverable for future use. Irretrievable commitments apply to the loss of production, harvest, or 

use of natural resources. 

 The amendment of land use plans to identify lands as available or not available for 

application for leasing for commercial tar sands development would not result in the irreversible 

or irretrievable commitment of resources. However, irreversible and irretrievable commitments 

of resources could occur as a result of future commercial tar sands projects that are authorized, 

constructed, and operated on lands identified as available for such activities. The nature and 

magnitude of these commitments would depend on the specific location of the project 

development as well as its specific design and operational requirements. The commitment of 

resources would be identical for any specific project located in the same lease area under any of 

the alternatives. 

 In addition to the tar sands, the construction of future commercial tar sands projects under 

any of the alternatives could result in the consumption of sands, gravels, and other geologic 

resources, as well as fuel, structural steel, and other materials. Water resources could also be 

consumed during construction, although water use would be temporary and largely limited to 

on-site concrete mixing and dust abatement activities. 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-542 

 In general, the impact on biological resources from future project construction and 

operation would not constitute an irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources. During 

project construction and operation, individual animals would be impacted. Site-specific and 

species-specific analyses and mitigation conducted at the project level during authorization 

would make adverse impacts on entire populations unlikely. However, if adverse impacts on 

threatened or endangered species occurred, these impacts would likely constitute an irreversible 

and irretrievable commitment of resources. 

 The clearing of project areas (including off-lease locations where utility and pipeline 

ROWs, and employer-provided housing would be located) would result in the direct loss of 

vegetation and habitats within the construction footprints, which would be irretrievable in areas 

where project infrastructure would be constructed and operated. While habitat would be 

impacted during project construction, implementation of project-specific mitigation measures 

(such as habitat restoration) would reduce these impacts over time. However, habitats within 

project infrastructure footprints (such as buildings and surface mines) would be irretrievably 

committed with the development and operation of commercial tar sands projects. 

 Cultural and paleontological resources are nonrenewable, and any disturbance of these 

resources would constitute an irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources. However, 

consideration and implementation of mitigation could minimize the potential for impacts on 

these resources. Access to previously inaccessible areas could lead to vandalism of both known 

and unknown cultural and paleontological resources, thereby rendering them irretrievable. 

Impacts on visual resources could constitute an irreversible and irretrievable commitment of 

resources, but these impacts could also be lowered somewhat through the consideration and 

implementation of the mitigation measures. 

6.2.7.4 Mitigation of Adverse Impacts 

 Following the amendment of land use plans to identify areas as available or not available 

for application for leasing for commercial tar sands development, future development of 

commercial tar sands projects within the lease areas could result in adverse impacts on many 

resources (see Chapter 5). The nature, extent, magnitude, and duration of any project-related 

impacts would be directly determined by (1) the project location, (2) the nature and quality of the 

resources at and in the vicinity of project site (and its associated infrastructure), and (3) the 

technology used and the plan of development for the project. Many of the impacts may be 

reduced or avoided through the implementation of appropriate site- and project-specific 

mitigation measures. Development of individual commercial tar sands projects would require 

additional project-specific NEPA analyses and the identification of location-, project- and 

resource-specific mitigation measures, and mitigation measures would be identified as lease 

stipulations by the BLM for any authorized commercial development. Chapter 5 of this PEIS 

identifies many types of resource-specific mitigation measures that could be implemented during 

project planning, construction, and operation. 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-543 

6.3 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. 

Allison, E., 2006, personal communication from Allison (Bureau of Land Management, Rawlins 

Field Office, Wyo.) to H. Hartmann (Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Ill.), June 27. 

Allison, M.L., 1997, A Preliminary Assessment of Energy & Mineral Resources within the 

Grand StaircaseEscalante National Monument, Utah Geological Survey, Utah Department of 

Natural Resources, Jan. Available at http://geology.utah.gov/online/c/c-93/index.htm. Accessed 

August 1, 2012. 

API (American Petroleum Institute), 2010, Freeing Up Energy, Hydraulic Fracturing: 

Unlocking American’s Natural Gas Resources, July 19. 

Baer, S., et al., 2010, A Class III Cultural Resource Inventory for the Williams Ryan Gulch Unit, 

Rio Blanco County, Colorado, SWCA, Inc., Denver, Colo. 

BBC Research and Consulting, 2008, Northwest Colorado Socioeconomic Analysis and 

Forecasts: Final Report, Denver, Colo., prepared for Associated Governments of Northwest 

Colorado, April. 

Berry, M.S, and C.F. Berry, 1975, An Inventory and Evaluation of Cultural Resources in and 

around Oil-Shale Lease U-a and U-b, manuscript on file, Utah Division of State History, Salt 

Lake City, Utah. 

BLM (Bureau of Land Management), undated, Reasonable Foreseeable Development: Oil and 

Gas in the Little Snake Field Office Administrative Boundary Area (LSFO), Colo. 

BLM, 1985, Grand Junction Resource Area: Resource Management Plan and Environmental 

Impact Statement, Draft, Grand Junction District Office, Colo., March. 

BLM, 1986, Record of Decision for the Kemmerer Resource Management Plan and Rangeland 

Program Summary Document, Kemmerer Resource Area, Rock Springs District, Wyo., June. 

BLM, 1987, Grand Junction Resource Area Resource Management Plan and Record of 

Decision, Grand Junction District, Colo., Jan. 

BLM, 1988, Record of Decision and Resource Management Plan, Glenwood Springs Resource 

Area, Grand Junction District, Colo., June. 

BLM, 1991, Resource Management Plan Record of Decision and Rangeland Program Summary 

for the San Juan Resource Area, Moab District, Utah, March. 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-544 

BLM, 1993, Diamond Mountain Resource Area Resource Management Plan and Environmental 

Impact Statement, Vernal District Office, Utah. 

BLM, 1994, White River Resource Area: Draft Resource Management Plan and Environmental 

Impact Statement, DES-94-43, Craig District, Colo., Oct. 

BLM, 1996, White River Resource Area: Proposed Resource Management Plan and Final 

Environmental Impact Statement, 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, 1999, Grand StaircaseEscalante National Monument: Proposed Management Plan/Final 

Environmental Impact Statement, July. 

BLM, 2002a, Final Mineral Report, Mineral Potential Report for the Vernal Planning Area, Oct. 

BLM, 2002b, Environmental Assessment Record #CO-140-2001-0051, Fire Management Plan 

for Wildland Fire Management & Prescriptive Vegetation Treatment Guidance, Decision Record 

& Resource Management Plan Amendment for the Glenwood Spring Field Office Fire 

Management Plan, Sept. 

BLM, 2003, Mineral Occurrence and Development Potential Report: Rawlins Resource 

Management Plan Planning Area, prepared by ENSR Corp., Fort Collins, Colo., and Booz Allen 

& Hamilton Inc., Greenwood Village, Colo., Feb. 

BLM, 2004a, Roan Plateau Planning Area (Including Former Naval Oil Shale Reserves 

Number 1 and 3): Resource Management Plan Amendment and Environmental Impact 

Statement, Draft, DES04-04, Glenwood Springs Field Office, Colo., Nov. 

BLM, 2004b, Draft Resource Management Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Statement for 

the Price Field Office, Price, Utah, DES 04-35, July. 

BLM, 2004c, Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Jack Morrow Hills Coordinated 

Activity Plan/Proposed Green River Resource Management Plan Amendment for Public Lands 

Administered by the Bureau of Land Management, Rock Springs Field Office, Rock Springs, 

Wyoming, DOI-BLM, BLM/WY/PL-04/019+1610, July. 

BLM, 2004d, Mineral Assessment Report: Kemmerer Field Office Planning Area, Jan. 

BLM, 2004e, “Reasonably Foreseeable Developments and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions,” 

Table A33 in Rawlins Resource Management Plan, Draft Environmental Impact Statement, 

Rawlins Field Office, Rawlins, Wyo., Dec. 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-545 

BLM, 2004f, Final Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Ten Mile Rim Coal Lease-byApplication and Associated Rights-of-Way, Sweetwater County, Wyoming, BLM/WY/PL-04-

018+1320, Sept. 

BLM, 2005a, Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario for Oil and Gas, Moab Field 

Office, prepared by R. McClure et al., Aug. Available at http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/ 

medialib/blm/ut/moab_fo/rmp/background_documents.Par.44906.File.dat/MoabFinalRFD 

withmaps.pdf. Accessed August 1, 2012. 

BLM, 2005b, Vernal Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement (Draft), 

Feb. 

BLM, 2005c, Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario for Oil & Gas, Background 

Documents for Richfield Resource Management Plan, March. 

BLM, 2005d, Mineral Potential Report. Background Documents for Richfield Resource 

Management Plan, March. 

BLM, 2005e, Finding of No Significant Impact and Decision Record for the Bitter Creek 

Shallow Oil and Gas Project, Sweetwater County, Wyoming, Rock Springs Field Office, Wyo., 

June. 

BLM, 2005f, Draft Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on Bureau of Land Management 

Lands in 17 Western States Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, DES 05-56, 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Reno, Nev., Nov. 

BLM, 2005g, Public Rewards from Public Lands 2004–2005, BLM/WO/GI-05/001+1120, 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. Available at http://www.blm.gov/nhp/ 

pubs/rewards/2005/PR05NATLtxt.pdf. Accessed April 10, 2007. 

BLM, 2005h, Utah Land Use Plan Amendment for Fire and Fuels Management, UT-US-04-01, 

Sept. 

BLM, 2006a, Environmental Assessment, Chevron Oil Shale Research, Development & 

Demonstration, CO-110-2006-120-EA, White River Field Office, Meeker, Colo., Nov. 

BLM, 2006b, 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, 2006c, Environmental Assessment, EGL Resources, Inc., Oil Shale Research, 

Development and Demonstration Tract, CO-110-2006-118-EA, White River Field Office, 

Meeker, Colo., Oct. 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-546 

BLM, 2006d, 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. 

BLM, 2006e, 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, 2006f, 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, 2006g, 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, 2006h, 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, 2006i, 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. 

BLM, 2006j, Wildlife Management—Best Management Practices for Fluid Minerals, 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Nov. Available at http://www.blm.gov/bmp/technical% 

20info_pdfs_ppt_text/WO1_WildlifeMgmt_BMPs_Slideshow.pdf. Accessed April 12, 2007. 

BLM, 2006k, Environmental Assessment for Transfer and Issuance of a New Grazing Lease on 

the Dry Fork Allotment #04096 from Warrick Pastures (via Colorado State Land Board ) to 

Nottingham Land & Livestock, EA Number CO-100-2006-017EA, Little Snake Field Office, 

Craig, Colo. 

BLM, 2006l, BLM Forest Lands Report 2006: Status and Condition, Bureau of Land 

Management, Denver, Colorado, BLM/ST/ST-07/001+5000. 

BLM, 2006m, Trapper’s Route Recreation Area Management Plan and Environmental 

Assessment, WY-060-EA06-107, Casper Field Office, Wyo., June. 

BLM, 2006n, NEPA Project Status Reports, Rock Springs Field Office, Wyo. 

BLM, 2006o, Monell Enhanced Oil Recovery Project Environment Assessment, 

EA No. WY-040-EA05-161, Rock Springs Field Office, Wyo., Feb. 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-547 

BLM, 2006p, Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Pit 14 Coal Lease-by-Application, 

Sweetwater County, Wyoming: As Applied for by Black Butte Coal Company, Rock Springs Field 

Office, Wyo., March. 

BLM, 2007a, 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, 2007b, 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, 2007c, 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, 2007d, Ely Energy Center Environment Impact Statement Project Description, Ely Field 

Office, Ely Nevada. 

BLM, 2007e, Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Little Snake Resource Management 

Plan, Craig, Colo., Jan. 

BLM, 2007f, Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Overland Pass Natural Gas Liquids 

Pipeline. 

BLM, 2007g, Final Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on Bureau of Land Management 

Lands in 17 Western States Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, FES 07-21, 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Reno, Nev., June. 

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, Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the West Tavaputs Plateau Natural Gas 

Field Full Development Plan, UT-070-05-055, Feb. 

BLM, 2008c, Vernal Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Management Plan, 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Vernal Field Office, Vernal, Utah, Oct. 

BLM, 2008d, Proposed Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

for the Price Field Office, Price Field Office, Utah, Aug. 

BLM, 2008e, Proposed Resource Management Plan Revision and Final Environmental Impact 

Statement for the Vernal Field Office Planning Area, Vernal Field Office, Utah, Aug. 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-548 

BLM, 2008f, Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan, Rawlins District 

Office, Great Divide Resource Area, Wyo. 

BLM 2008g Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Geothermal Leasing in 

the Western United States, FES-08-44, Oct. 

BLM 2008h, Record of Decision and Resource Management Plan Amendments for Geothermal 

Leasing in the United States, Dec. 

BLM, 2008i, Proposed Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement, 

Bureau of Land Management, Monticello Field Office, Utah, Aug. 

BLM 2008j, Proposed Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement 

for the Kemmerer Field Office Planning Area, Aug. 

BLM, 2008k, 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, 2009, Approved Resource Management Plan Amendments Record of Decision (ROD) for 

Designation of Energy Corridors on Bureau of Land Management-Administered Lands in the 

11 Western States, Jan. 

BLM 2010a, Public Land Statistics, 2010, Vol. 195, BLM/BC/ST-01/001+1165, June. 

BLM 2010b, Little Snake Proposed Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental 

Impact Statement, Colo., August. 

BLM, 2010c, Instruction Memorandum UT 2010-055, Protection of Ground Water Associated 

with Oil and Gas Leasing, Exploration and Development–Utah BLM, U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Utah State Office, July 20. 

BLM, 2010d, Record of Decision for the Kemmerer Resource Management Plan and Rangeland 

Program Summary Document, Kemmerer Resource Area, Rock Springs District, Wyo. 

BLM, 2011a, Draft Resource Management Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Statement for 

the Colorado River Valley Field Office, Colo., Sept. 

BLM, 2011b, Fracking on BLM Colorado Well Sites. Available at http://www.blm.gov/ 

pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/co/information/congressional_briefings.Par.14069.File.dat/Fracking_ 

March11.pdf. Accessed July 30, 2012. 

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. 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-549 

BLM and DOE, 2011, Supplement to the Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement 

for Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States, DES 11-49, DOE/EIS-0403D-S, Oct.

BOR (Bureau of Reclamation), 2004, Colorado River System Consumptive Uses and Losses 

Report 1996–2000, U.S. Department of the Interior. 

BOR, 2005, Upper Colorado River Basin Consumptive Uses and Losses Report as Revised after 

Peer Review 1971–1995, U.S. Department of the Interior. 

BOR, 2006, Provisional Upper Colorado River Basin Consumptive Uses and Losses Report as 

Revised after Peer Review 2001–2005, U.S. Department of the Interior. 

BOR, 2010, Provisional Upper Colorado River Basin Consumptive Uses and Losses Report 

2006–2010, U.S. Department of the Interior. 

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. 

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. 

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, compilation of financial reports for fiscal 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. 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-550 

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. 

CNHP (Colorado Natural Heritage Program), 2011, Element Occurrences by Quad. Available at 

http://www.cnhp.colostate.edu/exchange/request.asp. Accessed Aug. 1, 2012. 

Colorado State Demography Office, 2007, State Demography Office. Available at http://www. 

dola.state.co.us/demog/. Accessed March 2007. 

Colorado State Demography Office, 2011, Population and Employment Forecasts. Available at 

http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite/DOLA-Main/CBON/1251590805419. Accessed 

Sept. 2011. 

Connor, C.E., 2006a, Class III Cultural Resource Inventory of a 160-Acre Block Area for the 

Chevron Research, Development and Demonstration Oil Shale Project in Rio Blanco County, 

Colorado, prepared by Grand River Institute, Grand Junction, Colo., April. 

Connor, C.E., 2006b, Class III Cultural Resource Inventory of a Linear ROW (7150′) for the 

Chevron Research, Development and Demonstration Oil Shale Project in Rio Blanco County, 

Colorado, prepared by Grand River Institute, Grand Junction, Colo., April. 

Connor, C.E., and B.J. Davenport, 2001, Class III Cultural Resource Inventory Report for the 

BLM Portions of a Proposed Land Exchange in Rio Blanco County, Colorado, prepared for Shell 

Frontier Oil and Gas, Inc., by Grand River Institute, Grand Junction, Colo. 

Connor, C.E., et al., 2004, Experimental Project Site: A Class III Cultural Resource Inventory 

Report for a 920-Acre Block in Rio Blanco County, Colorado, prepared by Grand River Institute, 

Grand Junction, Colo., for Shell Frontier Oil and Gas, Inc. 

Connor, C.E., et al., 2005, Experimental Project Site: A Class III Cultural Resource Inventory 

Report for 448 Block Acres in Rio Blanco County, Colorado, prepared by Grand River Institute, 

Grand Junction, Colo., for Shell Frontier Oil and Gas, Inc. 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-551 

Dahl, T.E., 1990, Wetlands Losses in the United States, 1780’s to 1980’s, U.S. Department of the 

Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.; Northern Prairie Wildlife Research 

Center Online, Jamestown, N.D. Available at http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/wetlands/ 

wetloss/index.htm (Version 16JUL97). Accessed Aug. 1, 2012. 

Darnell, N., 2006, Class III Cultural Resource Inventory of a 160-Acre Block Area for the 

2nd Generation ICP Site in Rio Blanco County, Colorado, prepared by Grand River Institute, 

Grand Junction, Colo., for Shell Frontier Oil and Gas, Inc. 

Delta County, Colorado, 2005, Delta County, Colorado, Basic Financial Statements, Year Ended 

December 31, 2005, Board of Commissioners, Delta County, Delta, Colo. 

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 1988, Energy Technologies and the Environment, 

Environmental Information Handbook, DOE/EH-0077, Office of Environmental Analysis, 

Washington, D.C., Oct. 

DOE, 2006, Environmental Benefits of DOE’s Oil and Gas R&D Programs, Office of Fossil 

Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory, July. Available at http://www.netl.doe.gov/ 

publications/factsheets/program/Prog081.pdf. Accessed Aug. 1, 2012. 

DOE and DOI, 2008, 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. Accessed Aug. 1, 2012. 

DOI and USDA (U.S. Department of the Interior and U.S. Department of Agriculture), 2006, 

Surface Operating Standards and Guidelines for Oil and Gas Exploration and Development, the

Gold Book, 4th ed., BLM/WO/ST-06/021+30721, Bureau of Land Management, Denver, Colo. 

Duchesne County, Utah, 2004, Duchesne County Financial Statements, Year Ending 

December 31, 2004, County Commissioners, Duchesne County, Duchesne, Utah. 

Easley, M., 2006, Cumulative Impact Factors for Wyoming for BLM Review, personal 

communication from Easley (Bureau of Land Management, Kemmerer Field Office, Wyo.) to 

K. Smith (Argonne National Laboratory, Lakewood, Colo.), June 26. 

EIA (Energy Information Administration), 2006, Wind Resource Potential, U.S. Map, 

U.S. Department of Energy. Available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.renewables/ 

ilands/fig13.html. Accessed Aug. 1, 2012. 

EIA, 2011a, Existing Electric Generating Units in the United States: 2008, U.S. Department of 

Energy. Available at http://38.96.246.204/cneaf/electricity/page/capacity/capacity.html. 

Accessed Nov. 2011. 

EIA, 2011b, Colorado Renewable Electricity Profile. July. Available at: http://www.eia.gov/ 

cneaf/solar.renewables/page/state_profiles/colorado.html. Accessed Nov. 2011. 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-552 

EIA, 2011c, Wyoming Renewable Electricity Profile. July. Available at: http://www.eia.gov/ 

cneaf/solar.renewables/page/state_profiles/wyoming.html. Accessed Nov. 2011 

Ellis, M.S., et al., 1999, Preliminary Report on Coal Resources of the Wyodak-Anderson Coal 

Zone, Powder River Basin, Wyoming and Montana, Open-File Report 98-0789-A, online ed., 

U.S. Geological Survey. Available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1998/ofr-98-0789-a/ofr-98-

0789a.pdf. Accessed Aug. 1, 2012. 

Emery County, Utah, 2004, Emery County Financial Statements December 31, 2004, Emery 

County Clerk/Auditor, Castle Dale, Utah. 

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 1985, Report to Congress, Wastes from the 

Extraction and Beneficiation of Metallic Ores. 

EPA, 1994, Technical Resource Document, Extraction and Beneficiation of Ores and Minerals. 

Volume 7, Phosphate and Molybdenum, EPA 530-R-94-94-034, NTIS PB94-201001, Office of 

Solid Wastes, Washington, D.C. 

EPA, 1997, EPA’s National Hardrock Mining Framework, Office of Water, Washington D.C., 

Sept. Available at http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/frame-factsheet.pdf. Accessed August 1, 

2012. 

EPA, 2002, eGrid 2002 Archive, Office of Clean Energy, Washington, D.C. 

EPA, 2008, Coal Combustion Products Partnership. Available at http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/ 

osw/conserve/c2p2/index.htm. Accessed May 15, 2008. 

Ernst, R., 2006, Cumulative Impact Factors for Colorado for BLM Review, personal 

communication from Ernst (Bureau of Land Management, Colorado State Office) to 

H.M. Hartmann (Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Ill.). 

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. 

Grand County, Utah, 2004, Grand County Financial Statements for the Year Ended 

December 31, 2004, Grand County Council, Moab, Utah. 

Hobbs, R.J., 2001, “Synergisms among Habitat Fragmentation, Livestock Grazing, and Biotic 

Invasions in Southwestern Australia,” Conservation Biology 15(6):1522–1528. 

Hoefer III, T., and M.E. Greenberg, 2006a, A Class III Cultural Resource Inventory of the 

Proposed EGL Oil Shale Development Tract, Rio Blanco, Colorado, Report No. 06-002, 

prepared by Cultural Resources Analysts, Inc., Longmont, Colo., for O&G Environmental 

Consulting, Englewood, Colo., April. 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-553 

Hoefer III, T., and M.E. Greenberg, 2006b, EGL Oil Shale Tract Powerline, Class III Inventory, 

Rio Blanco, Colorado, Report No. 06-004, prepared by Cultural Resources Analysts, Inc., 

Longmont, Colo., for O&G Environmental Consulting, Englewood, Colo., June. 

Hollowed, C., 2007, RMP Well Number Assumptions, personal communication from Hollowed 

(Bureau of Land Management, Colorado State Office) to J. May (Argonne National Laboratory, 

Lakewood, Colo.), Feb. 26. 

Jackson, M., 2006, Cumulative Impact Factors for Utah for BLM Review: Richfield, personal 

communication from Jackson (Bureau of Land Management, Richfield Field Office, Utah) to 

H. Hartmann (Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Ill.), July 18. 

Jones, A., et al., 2004, Heart of the West Conservation Plan, Wild Utah Project, Salt Lake City, 

Utah. Available at http://www.wildutahproject.org/images/WUP_pubs?HOWPlan/ 

HeartoftheWestPlan-TOC.pdf. Accessed April 13, 2007. 

Knick, S.T., et al., 2003, “Teetering on the Edge or Too Late? Conservation and Research Issues 

for Avifauna of Sagebrush Habitats,” The Condor 105:611–634. 

Krueger, W., et al., 2002, Environmental Impacts of Livestock on Grazing Lands, Issue Paper 

No. 13, Council for Agricultural Science and Technology. Available at http://www.ars.usda.gov/ 

research/publications/publications.htm?SEQ_NO_115=130579. Accessed Aug. 1, 2012. 

Langer, H., 2002, A General Overview of the Technology of In-Stream Mining of Sand and 

Gravel Resources, Associated Potential Environmental Impacts, and Methods to Control 

Potential Impacts, Open-File Report OF-02-153, U.S. Geological Survey. Available at 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2002/ofr-02-153/OFR-02-153-508.pdf. Accessed Aug. 1, 2012. 

Lincoln County, Wyoming, 2006, Lincoln County Financial Statements, June 30, 2006, Board of 

County Commissioners, Kemmerer, Wyo. 

Lyman, R.M., and N.R. Jones, 2005, Wyoming Minerals Update: Coal, Wyoming State 

Geological Survey, Oct. 

MIG, Inc., 2012, IMPLAN Data Files, Stillwater, Minn. 

Maulbetsch, J.S., and M.N. DiFilippo, 2006, Cost and Value of Water Use at Combined-Cycle 

Power Plants, CEC-500-2006-034, California Energy Commission, PIER Energy-Related 

Environmental Research. 

Mesa County, Colorado, 2003, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, Mesa County, 

Colorado, for the Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2003. 

Moffat County, Colorado, 2005, Moffat County, Colorado, Craig, Colorado, Financial 

Statements, December 31, 2005. 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-554 

Murphey, P.C., and D. Daitch, 2007, unpublished information, Argonne National Laboratory, 

Argonne, Ill. 

Nara-Kloepper, J., 2006, Trona Production in Rock Springs Field Office, personal 

communication from Nara-Kloepper (Bureau of Land Management, Rock Springs Field Office, 

Wyo.) to H. Hartmann (Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Ill.), June 30. 

National Energy Policy Development Group, 2001, National Energy Policy: Reliable, 

Affordable, and Environmentally Sound Energy for America’s Future, May. Available at 

http://www.energy.gov/about/nationalenergypolicy.htm. Accessed March 27, 2007. 

NETL (National Energy Technology Laboratory), 2002, Advanced Fossil Power Systems 

Comparison Study, unnumbered report, Dec. Available at http://www.netl.doe.gov/ 

publications/others/techrpts/AdvFossilPowerSysCompStudy.pdf. Accessed June 19, 2012. 

NSC (National Safety Council), 2006, Injury Facts, 20052006 Ed., Itasca, Ill. 

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. 

Price Municipal Corporation, Utah, 2005, Price Municipal Corporation, Basic Financial 

Statements for the Year Ended June 30, 2005, Price, Utah. 

Riffell, S.K., et al., 1996, “Does Repeated Human Intrusion Cause Cumulative Declines in Avian 

Richness and Abundance?,” Ecological Applications 6(2):492–505. 

Rio Blanco County, Colorado, 2005, Summary of Levies and Values, Rio Blanco County, 

Colorado, 2005, Office of County Treasurer, Meeker, Colo. 

Roosevelt City Corporation, Utah, 2005, Roosevelt City Corporation, Duchesne County, Utah, 

Annual Financial Report for the Year Ended June 30, 2005. 

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. 

Secretary of the Interior, 2010, “Renewable Energy Development by the Department of the 

Interior,” Secretarial Order 3285, March 11. 

Spath, P.L., and M.K. Mann, 2000, Life Cycle Assessment of a Natural Gas Combined-Cycle 

Power Generation System, NREL/TP-570-27715, Golden, Colo., Sept, Available at 

http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy00osti/27715.pdf. Accessed June 20, 2012. 

Spath, P.L., et al., 1999, Life Cycle Assessment of Coal-Fired Power Production, NREL/TP-570-

25119, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, Colo., June. 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-555 

Standard and Poor’s, 2006, School Matters. 

State of Utah, 2012, Division of Oil, Gas and Mining, drilling statistics by county for 2008–

2011. Available at http://oilgas.ogm.utah.gov/Statistics/Statistics.cfm. Accessed Sept 25, 2012. 

SWCA (SWCA, Inc., Environmental Consultants), 1997, Colorado River Basin Study, Final 

Report, Report to the Western Water Policy Review Advisory Commission, Tucson, Ariz. 

Sweetwater County, Wyoming, 2005, Sweetwater County, Wyoming, Financial and Compliance 

Report, June 30, 2005, Sweetwater County Clerk, Green River, Wyo. 

Tabet, D.E., 2005, Mineral Potential Report for the Moab Planning Area, Moab Field Office, 

July. 

Thompson, S., 2006a, Cumulative Impact Factors for Colorado for BLM Review, personal 

communication from Thompson (Bureau of Land Management, Washington, D.C.) to 

K.P. Smith (Argonne National Laboratory, Lakewood, Colo.), June 27. 

Thompson, S., 2006b, personal communication from Thompson (Bureau of Land Management, 

Washington, D.C.) to K.P. Smith (Argonne National Laboratory, Lakewood, Colo.), Dec. 6. 

Thompson, S., 2006c, personal communication from Thompson (Bureau of Land Management, 

Washington, D.C.) to K.P. Smith (Argonne National Laboratory, Lakewood, Colo.), Dec. 13. 

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. 

UDWR (Utah Division of Wildlife Resources), 2011, Index of Available GIS Data. Available at 

http://dwrcdc.nr.utah.gov/ucdc/DownloadGIS/disclaim.htm. Accessed August 1, 2012. 

Uinta County, Wyoming, 2005, Uinta County, Wyoming, Comprehensive Annual Financial 

Report June 30, 2005, Uinta County Auditor, Evanston, Wyo. 

Uintah County, Utah, 2004, Uintah County Financial Statements for the Year Ended 

December 31, 2004. 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-556 

University of Colorado Law School, 2011, Intermountain Oil and Gas BMP Project, Hydraulic 

Fracturing, Natural Resources Law Center, Boulder, Colo. Available at http://www.oilandgas 

bmps.org/resources/fracing.php. Accessed Aug. 1, 2012. 

U.S. Census Bureau, 2006a, State Interim Population Projections by Age and Sex: 20042030. 

Available at http://www.census.gov/population/www/projections/projections agesex.html. 

Accessed July 2006. 

U.S. Census Bureau, 2006b, USA Counties. Available at http://censtats.census.gov/cgibin/usac/usatable.pl. Accessed July 2006. 

U.S. Department of Labor, 2011, Local Area Unemployment Statistics, Bureau of Labor 

Statistics. Available at http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/dsrv?la. Accessed Sept. 2011. 

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), 2011, Critical Habitat Portal, Critical Habitat for 

Threatened and Endangered Species. Available at http://criticalhabitat.fws.gov/crithab/. 

Accessed Oct. 7, 2011. 

USGS (U.S. Geological Survey), 2004a, Minerals Yearbook: The Mineral Industry of Colorado. 

Available at http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/state/co.html. Accessed Aug. 1, 2012. 

USGS, 2004b, Minerals Yearbook: The Mineral Industry of Utah. Available at 

http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/state/ut.html. Accessed Aug. 1, 2012. 

USGS, 2004c, Minerals Yearbook: The Mineral Industry of Wyoming. Available at 

http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/state/wy.html. Accessed Aug. 1, 2012. 

USGS, 2004d, National Gap Analysis Program, Provisional Digital Land Cover Map for the 

Southwestern United States, Version 1.0, RS/GIS Laboratory, College of Natural Resources, 

Utah State University. Available at http://earth.gis.usu.edu/swgap/landcover.html. Accessed 

Aug. 1, 2012. 

USGS, 2007, National Gap Analysis Program. Digital Animal-Habitat Models for the 

Southwestern United States, Version 1.0, Center for Applied Spatial Ecology, New Mexico 

Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, New Mexico State University. 

U.S. House of Representatives, 2011, Chemicals Used in Hydraulic Fracturing, Committee on 

Energy and Commerce Minority Staff, April. 

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 Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget, 2011, 2008 Baseline Projections. Available at 

http://www.governor.utah.gov/dea/publications/03Projections/2008BaselineHighlights.pdf. 

Accessed September 2011. 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-557 

Vanden Berg, M.D., 2005a, 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. 

Vanden Berg, M.D., 2005b, Mineral Potential Report for the Monticello Planning Area, 

Monticello Field Office, July. 

Vernal City Corporation, Utah, 2005, Vernal City Corporation Financial Statements for the Year 

Ended June 30, 2005. 

Wayne County, Utah, 2004, Wayne County Financial Statements, December 31, 2004. 

WGFD (Wyoming Game and Fish Department), 2004, Recommendations for Development of Oil 

and Gas Resources within Crucial and Important Wildlife Habitats, Cheyenne, Wyo., Dec. 6. 

Available at http://gf.state.wy.us/doenloads/ pdf/og.pdf. Accessed July 27, 2006. 

Widmann, B.L., 2002, Sand and Gravel Resources Adjacent to the Colorado River Valley, 

Garfield County, Colorado, Open File Report 02-12, Colorado Geological Survey, Division of 

Minerals and Geology, Department of Natural Resources, Denver, Colo. 

WYNDD (Wyoming Natural Diversity Database), 2011a, Wyoming Natural Diversity Database.

Available at http://uwadmnweb.uwyo.edu/wyndd/. Accessed August 1, 2012. 

WYNDD, 2011b, “Wyoming Natural Diversity Database. 2010 Species Distribution Models for 

the State of Wyoming,” correspondence between M. Andersen (GIS Specialist, WYNDD) and 

L. Walston (Ecologist, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Ill.), March 9. 

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 Department of Administration and Information, 2011, Population for Wyoming, 

Counties, Cities, and Towns 2010 to 2030. Available at http://eadiv.state.wy.us/pop/ 

wyc&sc30.pdf. Accessed Sept. 2011. 

 
Final OSTS PEIS 6-558 

This page intentionally left blank.